Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read a Third time on Monday 24 February at Seven o'clock.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 24 February at Seven o'Clock.

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE SAFETY BILL (By Order)

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 27 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police Authorities

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to police authorities.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): We have no plans to change the existing arrangements for the constitution of police authorities, where two thirds of the members are local councillors and one third are local magistrates.

Mr. Paice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent opinion poll only 8 per cent. of the respondents supported the idea that police authorities should consist only of elected members? Is it surprising that the public should resist such an attempt to politicise the police, despite the fact that it is the policy of the Opposition?

Mr. Baker: As far as I can see, it is the only policy that will appear in Labour's manifesto, in that Labour want fully elected police authorities. There is no popular support for that and there is no evidence that policing is made more effective by tinkering with the membership of the police authority. In my judgment, magistrates add an important element of non-political independence to any police authority and they help to improve the effectiveness of that authority. We remain strongly opposed to bringing police forces under total local political control.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that in London there is a majority in favour of Labour's proposal to set up an elected police authority for the Greater London area? We already have one elected police authority in London—in the City of London. Is the Secretary of State further aware that the proposal is welcomed not only by the majority of Londoners, but by all the senior officers of Scotland Yard? What has he got to say to that?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents that opinion of senior police officers of the Metropolitan police. I know perfectly well that when he was chairman of the Greater London council he wanted an elected police authority, and I think that he wanted to be chairman of it—

Mr. Tony Banks: No.

Mr. Baker: I can think of nothing more damaging to law and order in the metropolis than having the hon. Gentleman as chairman of such an authority.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary has just misled the House. He is a liar.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment, even though I was on my feet.

Mr. Banks: If the Secretary of State withdraws his allegation, I will withdraw my accusation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No ifs and buts, please.

Mr. Banks: I called the Home Secretary a liar. It is true and I regret it.

Mr. Speaker: That compounds the offence. The hon. Gentleman must not call an hon. Member a liar.

Mr. Banks: I withdraw it, Sir.

Police Expenditure

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extra police expenditure resulting from the War Crimes Act 1991.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Additional police expenditure associated with the War Crimes Act 1991 is estimated at £930,000 for 1991–92.

Mr. Townsend: On reflection, does my right hon. Friend agree that precious police resources—the figure of £2 million has been mentioned—should not be used on vindictive, Soviet or Israeli-type show trials which are bound to be a travesty of British justice as practised by this country for a long time? Should not the money be used instead to deal with rapists, murderers and muggers in my constituency and in other parts of Greater London today?

Mr. Patten: There are two points there. I respect my hon. Friend's strong personal feelings, but I point out to him that Parliament has expressed its view very strongly. It is now up to those charged with the duty of investigating alleged crimes to do so. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that no Government have brought the police force to such a level as this Conservative Government have done. It is better manned, it has more resources and it is better equipped than any police force in British history.

Mr. Winnick: I totally disagree with what the Minister said about police resources. We know only too well of the crime wave in this country.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Friday, on a delegation to Kiev, I took the opportunity—as I had always promised myself that I would if ever I were in Kiev —to visit Babi Yar, just outside the city limits, where in two years of Nazi terror and occupation tens of thousands of people were murdered? There is a monument to those who fell—men, women, children, babes in arms and the aged. Why should those responsible for such crimes and atrocities against humanity go scot free because they have managed to escape justice for 50 years?

Mr. Patten: I appreciate the effect that the hon. Gentleman's visit, of which I was not aware, must have had on him. Parliament has already expressed its view that investigations should proceed and, if necessary, prosecutions should be brought. It is then a matter for due process of law before a trial judge and jury as to whether people are found guilty and punished.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if he implies any strictures at all, he should be aware of the amount of help that has been given to the police force since 1979. He should recall that in the last two years of the last Labour Government, up to 5,000 police men and women were leaving the police force each year and voting with their feet.

Sir John Farr: Is it not time to cease the spiteful vendetta against a group of pathetic old people who really have nothing left to offer?

Mr. Patten: Again, I respect my hon. Friend's strongly held personal views, but Parliament has expressed its views and I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave to the two previous questions.

Drugs

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information on drug shipments and drug seizures from illegal traffic from European countries and from other countries is shared with United Kingdom, European countries and other interested organisations.

Mr. John Patten: Responsibility for combating drug trafficking is shared between Her Majesty's Custom and Excise and the police service. There are close and developing links with other European countries and elsewhere. In some of those countries, those links are enhanced by the posting or exchange of drugs liaison officers. Effective exchange of information is essential, and we devote considerable efforts to that. The United Kingdom also plays a full role in the work of international organisations—in particular, Interpol and the Customs Co-operation Council.

Mr. McFall: I am sure that the Minister will congratulate Customs and Excise on the record seizures of drugs that it has undertaken. Nevertheless, heroin is still coming into this country at an increasing rate, and something must be done to control it. In view of the recent "Dispatches" television programme, has the Minister conducted an inquiry into how the police, Customs and Excise and the security services work together and how they share information with other countries so as to reduce the hard drugs problem that each and every hon. Member sees weekly in his or her constituency?

Mr. Patten: I agree that it is a serious problem—and not, I hope, one for party political debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that co-operation between the services—customs and the police at frontiers and at ports of entry —is very close indeed. Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they possibly can to cut off overland supplies of heroin, in particular, coming along the so-called Balkan route. In the next few months, with British taxpayers' money, we shall be setting up a national drugs intelligence unit in Czechoslovakia to try to intercept drugs coming overland. We hope shortly to do the same in Hungary.

Mr. Soames: Would it not be a good idea if the airlines, when checking in passengers in those countries from which large quantities of drugs come to this country, were to hand each passenger a paper in his or her own language clearly explaining that if they bring drugs into the United Kingdom they are likely to be caught and, if they are caught, they are likely to go away for a very long time indeed?

Mr. Patten: That is an interesting thought from my hon. Friend and I shall pursue it. The effect on anyone flying into Kuala Lumpur and hearing a Malaysian Airlines hostess saying, "You are about to land in Kuala Lumpur: if you bring drugs into our country, the penalty


is death by hanging" must be very salutary indeed. We do not have that penalty, but we have life imprisonment—which means between 20 to 30 years in the case of some of those convicted in the most serious cases. The notice to which my hon. Friend referred is a very good idea indeed.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the shadow Home Secretary?"] My right hon. Friend is presenting awards at an important lunch. The Minister of State does not want to make this a political issue, but I want to make two important political points. It is all very well for the Government to pretend to mount a campaign against drugs and drug imports, but at the same time they have allowed another Department, the Treasury—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear—to cut 400 customs officer jobs. Customs officers are the front-line troops. They are the people who stop drugs flowing into Britain. The Government have also allowed the Port of London police to be privatised What does that do for the campaign against drug imports?

Mr. Patten: What a rant—the hon. Gentleman gives his well-known imitation of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but without the charm and lightness of touch. The Government are spending about half a billion pounds per year dealing with the serious international problems caused by drug traffickers trying to bring drugs into Britain. I would hope for a little bipartisan support for the sort of work done, for example, by our drugs liaison officers abroad, who have brought about such successful seizures of heroin and other drugs in recent months.

Car Crime

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on new initiatives undertaken by car manufacturers as part of his strategy to defeat car crime.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am glad to report that in the past few months we have made real progress with the car manufacturers. I have had three meetings with them and our manufacturers are committed to improving the security of their cars and, in particular, introducing immobilising devices, deadlocks and visible identification numbers. Much has been done in the past few months, but more needs to be done. I am meeting the manufacturers again early in March.

Mr. Hague: I welcome the moves made so far by my right hon. Friend to encourage manufacturers to make cars more defensible. Will he undertake to include the insurance industry in his fight against car crime and encourage it to give financial incentives by way of lower premiums to owners who improve the security of their vehicles?

Mr. Baker: I have had two meetings with the Association of British Insurers. At the first, there was not much co-operation, but I am glad to say that in October the association announced a scheme similar to that which my hon. Friend suggested—to offer discounts to certain car owners who have security devices fitted when the car is being made in the factory. It has also introduced excess payments for when goods are stolen from people's cars. That is a beginning, but I expect the insurance industry to do much more in helping to reduce car crime.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that any measures taken to increase car security will be welcome in Northern Ireland, where stolen vehicles are so often used in terrorist murders and other such crimes? Will he also ask the manufacturers to consider the possibility of installing devices to enable stolen cars to be traced, so that if a terrorist murder is committed the police can get on the track quickly?

Mr. Baker: I acknowledge that in Northern Ireland cars are used extensively for terrorist activities, quite apart from normal criminal activities to support terrorism. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am glad to say that work is being done on such devices so that we can trace cars more effectively. All those measures must be taken because cars are now involved in 30 per cent. of all crime. Unfortunately, that is a record unique to Britain. We have a uniquely high level of car crime and we must all do something to reduce it.

Mr. Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of that car crime is carried out by juveniles and how many of them come into the category of persistent offenders?

Mr. Baker: A large proportion of car crime is carried out by young males between the ages of 12 and 22. I must ask my right hon. Friend to wait for an answer to his question about persistent offenders. I shall be making a statement in the next few days about offending while on bail.

Mr. Darling: It must be six years since the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) first met the manufacturers. Since then, there have been about half a dozen glitzy launches—featuring among others, the Home Secretary grinning into the television cameras, telling us that something was going to be done some time. Is it not time that the Government forced the pace and, if necessary, made regulations requiring manufacturers to incorporate safety procedures? We do that regularly for aviation safety matters. Why cannot the Government force the pace, make real progress and do something about reducing what the Home Secretary acknowledges is the fastest growing crime?

Mr. Baker: Progress is being made. Significant changes have been made during the past few months. As a result of my promptings, car manufacturers are committed to introducing immobilising devices on all new cars by the end of the year. In addition, I have put the matter on the agenda for the Ministers of the Interior of our partners in Europe, because I want a European standard with tighter security applying to all cars made in Europe and sold in this country.

National Drugs Intelligence Unit

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current annual budget of the national drugs intelligence unit.

Mr. John Patten: The annual budget for 1991–92 is £5·2 million.

Mr. Steen: Does the Minister agree that something must be done to control imports of the drug known as Ecstasy, which is not merely creeping into schools in London but has reached teenagers in my constituency in


south Devon? Is he aware that that drug is not grown on some poppy field in South America but that 98 per cent. of it is manufactured in Holland, which is one of our EC partners? The Dutch have been very lax in dealing with that. What does my right hon. Friend think that we could do to stop the drug being imported into this country, or arranging some reciprocal arrangement whereby we would stop importing Dutch cheese or some such thing?

Mr. Patten: I do not know about that kind of radical suggestion, but the police were very successful last year in closing down four domestic manufacturers of Ecstasy—hence the fact that most of the drug being sold on our streets comes from abroad, some from continental Europe. That is why it is so important that, as one of the conclusions of the Maastricht settlement, it was agreed that the 12 countries should set up an organisation loosely known as Europol whose first job would be to set up a Europeanwide drugs intelligence unit among the Twelve, which should lead to a greater level of co-operation with our continental partners to stop Ecstasy and other drugs coming into the country.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How do we know that the drugs enforcement authorities are doing their job when there is no point at which they are democratically accountable to elected people? Is that not a pertinent question in the context of the millions of pounds worth of drugs on the streets throughout the United Kingdom? Where is the process of accountability whereby elected people can ask questions such as, "What are you doing to stop it?"

Mr. Patten: There are thousands of police officers in the 17 drugs wings who are accountable to the police authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I come to this place to answer questions about them. Also we have democratic accountability for the customs service, which is deeply involved. Occasionally it is important to ensure that people are protected, such as the brave police officers, both men and women—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has not time to listen—who serve abroad as drugs liaison officers on difficult and dangerous work. We should support them and not seek to undermine them.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have lost a young constituent to one Ecstasy tablet? It is a killer drug. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charity Release is putting out the leaflet that I have here, which dupes young people into the belief that Ecstasy is somehow not a harmful drug? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to withdraw all Government funding for that organisation until it sends a clear message to young people about drugs—"No, no, and no"?

Mr. Patten: I shall read carefully the evidence that my hon. Friend will probably wish to send me about the document to which he referred. I agree entirely that Ecstasy is a drug which can kill. The first reported death was in 1989 and there were five deaths last year. Ecstasy kills because it affects the respiratory system and causes lung failure and hence death. Also clear evidence is emerging that, unfortunately, long-term psychotic effects may be involved. That is why we are absolutely determined to make sure that the advice that reaches young people is correct. My hon. Friend is right to put his finger on advice

that he thinks is wrong. That is why I give a clear undertaking that our answer to pleas to legalise the use of soft drugs will be no, no, and no again.

Miss Lestor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of ranting and raving as I am always the sweet face of reason.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) about the dangers of Ecstasy. There is not a parent of teenage children who is not worried out of their life about the use of cocaine, Ecstasy and heroin, especially when our children can obtain them almost without question anywhere in the country, even in the constituency of South Hams. The Minister has few suggestions on how to combat that problem and the Government have cut the number of customs officers by 400. I believe that all parents would rather pay increased taxes or not receive tax cuts if that would deal with the problem. Why has the number of customs officers been cut when only recently an amount of Ecstasy was seized at Sheerness and cocaine is periodically seized in various parts of the country? Such a cut is a false economy and it is killing our children.

Mr. Patten: I enjoyed the hon. Lady's charmed offensive and I would never in any circumstances dream of comparing her with her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
I have two things to say in response. First, customs have been extremely successful this year with record seizures of Ecstasy. Secondly, the hon. Lady does not seem to be aware that 17 drug prevention teams have been established in areas where Ecstasy and other drugs are being consumed in large amounts and sold on the streets. I visited the drug prevention team in Newham only last week. I have also seen the excellent work being done on prevention in schools and with young people to get across the message, which must be repeated year after year as children come into the consuming group, about the dangers of drug abuse. The work of the drug prevention teams deserves the support of the whole House.

Police Clerical Posts

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the civilianisation of police clerical posts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): In the past eight years, some 5,400 police officers have been freed for operational policing duties by civilianising posts which do not require the powers or skills of a police officer, representing an efficiency gain of around £100 million per year.

Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Will he extend his congratulations to the West Midlands police, who have civilianised 413 posts since 1985? Does not that suggest how we can release police officers to duties within the community at very little cost to the police authority?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly extend my congratulations to the West Midlands police. It has done well and civilianised 73 per cent. of the posts identified, but, even though it has done very well, it has somewhat further to go.

Mr. Alton: In the light of the 86 per cent. increase in robberies on Merseyside in the past 13 years, does the Minister agree that the freeing of police officers through the civilianisation of posts should give Merseyside police the chance to put more policemen back on to the beat? Does he further agree that there is a need to reopen neighbourhood police stations and to put more emphasis on community policing?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right about the benefits from civilianisation. That suggests to me that he supports the policy of sector policing that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put his weight behind. That policy means that the police identify with the local community that they serve.

Sir Peter Emery: In parallel with civilianisation of the police, will my hon. Friend ensure that instructions are given to all chief constables to increase further the designation of special constables and to increase the special constabulary, which would lead to more bobbies on the beat? Is that not the best discouragement to crime and an encouragement to those elderly people who fear being attacked on the streets?

Mr. Lloyd: Our objective is that the number of special constables should equal about 20 per cent. of the regular police force. The campaigns that we have been conducting are moving in that direction because special constables have a particularly valuable part to play.

Mr. Randall: On the question of police numbers, why has the Minister constantly refused to provide chief constables with the number of police officers that they need to reduce crime? Why do not the Government copy Labour's policy of supporting our police forces by substantially increasing the number of bobbies on the beat in a self-financing fashion?

Mr. Lloyd: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box to suggest that the Government follow Labour's policy. When the Labour Government left office, they left the police force about 7,000 under strength.

Travellers

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase the penalties for the unlawful occupation of private or public land by traveller families; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The main criminal penalties for unlawful occupation of land, under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Public Order Act 1986, are fines. The maximum level of all fines will increase when the Criminal Justice Act 1991 takes effect in October.

Mr. Dunn: Does the Minister realise that traveller families pose an immense law and order problem to local authorities and the police, especially in north-west Kent? Will he therefore liaise with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment so that a joint effort can be made to give the law the rigour to prohibit the illegal occupation of public and private land by traveller families?

Mr. Lloyd: I well understand, as my county has similar problems involving unlawful occupation of sites by gipsies and other travelling folk. As my hon. Friend implies, the

principal Act belongs to the Department of the Environment—the Caravan Sites Act 1968. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recognises that there can be difficulties with that Act and is considering whether a review would be helpful. However, local authorities have had a duty, since 1968, to provide adequate sites for gipsies normally resorting to their area and, where they have done so to the satisfaction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, they have criminal powers to remove illegal campers.

Mr. Trimble: Would it be possible to have another look at the last provision that the Minister mentioned, which imposes on local authorities a duty to provide sites for travellers? Why should they have to facilitate what is, in all its aspects, an anti-social form of life and thus impose a loss on rate and charge payers, who then have to put up with such sites in their neighbourhood?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty of moving on people who lead a nomadic lifestyle when there is nowhere to move them to. As I said, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is concerned about the issue and I shall draw the remarks that have been made today to his attention.

Sir George Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend aware that section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 has proved something of a disappointment in protecting those whose homes are near tracts of land that are habitually invaded by travellers? Does he agree that those peaceful citizens have their rights too, particularly against the disturbance, disorder and disruption that is often brought by those people? Is not further legislation urgently needed?

Mr. Lloyd: Section 39 is available for the police to use at their discretion. It was designed to deal with seriously aggravated unlawful occupation, not to undermine the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which is the basic legislation in that area. We have no plans to change section 39. It was recently reviewed and guidance was issued, but we shall examine how that guidance has been used.

Mr. Madden: While I recognise that the occupation of unofficial sites can cause a severe nuisance to settled communities, surely the Minister must appreciate that the only proper way of dealing with the matter is to enforce the 1968 legislation. How can he justify the fact that, so long after that legislation was introduced, local authorities such as Kirklees and Calderdale have made absolutely no permanent provision with proper facilities to provide proper homes for travelling people?

Mr. Lloyd: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. In not getting themselves designated, county councils cause problems for their local residents, as they are unable to achieve the powers that would enable them to deal with unlawful campers.

West Yorkshire Police Authority

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision relating to West Yorkshire police authority's application for a £3.6 million grant from the urban crime fund.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We expect to receive details of applications from all those eligible, including West Yorkshire, later this month, and to make decisions by the end of March.

Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the residents of West Yorkshire will be pleased to know that a decision on the matter is not too far off? I am sure that every one of them would want that extra money to come to West Yorkshire, as I do. Is not the extra £3·6 million further evidence of the Government's clear commitment to fighting crime? Does not that contrast sharply with the complete mess that the Government inherited from the Labour party in 1979, when there was low police morale, low police pay and the police were way under strength?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. We expect the authorities to come up with imaginative schemes, designed to tackle specific local crime problems, such as kerb crawling, mugging and burglary. If they do, they will certainly bring great benefits to the public in their district.

Mr. Lofthouse: I am sure that West Yorkshire will welcome any assistance that the schemes can give, and will also appreciate that its rate support grant has increased by 16 per cent., but that does not mean that it can bring its force up to the required standard. Has the Minister any plans to assist the West Yorkshire police authority to enable it to bring its police forces up to the required standard?

Mr. Lloyd: Although spending nationally on the police has risen 73 per cent. during this Government's life, in West Yorkshire the figure is 83 per cent. Therefore, the spending in that police authority area is higher than elsewhere, so it does have the resources to police to strength and it will receive additional resources under the arrangements.

Sir Donald Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that we welcome the £3·6 million in West Yorkshire? Will he ensure that the money is spent throughout the county?

Mr. Lloyd: It will be spent throughout the police area, except in those regions that do not come within the urban crime catchment area—

Sir Donald Thompson: That is the wrong answer.

Mr. Lloyd: I am giving my hon. Friend the correct answer; if he has asked the wrong question, that is his problem.
The area does not include Wakefield and Calderdale, but if the police authority has good sense, it will arrange its spending so that the benefit will also be felt outside the immediate area to which the money applies.

Mr. Sheerman: Conservative Central Office does not seem to have got its questions and answers right today. At a time when crime has doubled in this country and is increasing at a rate of 28 per cent. per annum in West Yorkshire, how can a Minister stand in the House and say that it will keep West Yorkshire 154 police officers under strength this year and next year?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman had listened the last time we had Home Office questions he would know perfectly well that the standard spending assessment has been set in West Yorkshire to enable it to employ police

officers up to the full establishment. The problem in West Yorkshire is that it costs more there to put a police man on the beat, and the authority spends more per head of the population. If its cost effectiveness was equal to that of the average police authority, it would be able to recruit up to full establishment.

Derek Bentley

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Derek Bentley.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The report which I have received from the police is receiving careful consideration. I shall decide as soon as I can whether any action on my part is appropriate in this case.

Mr. Burns: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recall that it is now 40 years since that unfortunate and backward youth was hanged? Does he accept that not only that youth's family but many other people have a total lack of comprehension as to how someone could be hanged in this country when he was in police custody when the gun was fired and the unfortunate police officer was killed by another person? Although it is 40 years since the incident, I urge my right hon. Friend to give urgent consideration to the case because the suffering of Derek Bentley's family continues day in and day out.

Mr. Baker: I appreciate the importance of the case and the public interest in it. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has taken new evidence which has been received and is being assessed by my Department. It will then be submitted to me and I shall review not only that evidence but all the earlier evidence, the reports of the trial and all the voluminous other aspects of the case. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do that as soon as I can.

Mr. Corbett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on raising this issue. Has the Home Secretary considered exercising his powers of a posthumous pardon in this case? If he has, will he explain why he decided not to act? Secondly, I urge him to make the best possible speed in this matter because for many of us it represents the most dreadful stain on our criminal justice system.

Mr. Baker: The material new facts that have emerged involve new evidence from certain officers who were present on the night of the crime and who witnessed certain things. That evidence has to be assessed, and when that is done I shall, of course, make a decision.

Sunday Trading

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions on the future of Sunday trading.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My extensive programme of separate discussions with a wide range of major interest groups on possible ways of reforming the Shops Act 1950 is nearing completion. For the present, there remain great differences between the groups. Once the legal position of the Shops


Act 1950 in relation to Community law is clear, I hope to be in a position to recommend a way forward to the House.

Mr. Coombs: Is it not by now abundantly obvious to everyone that those organisations that remain implacably opposed to Sunday trading will never agree to any compromise solution to the problem that could be laid before the House and command widespread support? Has not the time come for the Government to commit themselves unequivocally to legislate in the next Parliament so that those who wish to shop on Sunday and exercise their free choice to do so are enabled to do so by total deregulation of the law?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend represents the important views of a number of colleagues. However, another group of people have equally strongly held views, and for that reason it is not as easy as my hon. Friend would have the House believe to introduce legislation that would command total respect in the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Minister appreciate that tomorrow there will be an opportunity to ensure that proposals put to the House could be accepted, could go into Committee and could form the basis of discussion for any Government returned on 9 April? 1 know that a Labour Government will be returned and I am sure that that Government will not take as long as from 1986 to the present time, as this Government have, to do something constructive about changing the law and bringing in legislation that could be enforced throughout the country.

Mrs. Rumbold: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's views; I also appreciate the fact that he is presenting a proposal to the House of Commons. I think that he knows that it is difficult for the Government to accept, any proposal before the question of Community law is resolved, and also that his proposals are relatively controversial.

Mr. Malins: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the supermarkets that have recently been opening on Sundays? Does she accept that very few people are totally opposed to Sunday trading, but millions want some form of compromise that recognises the special nature of Sunday?

Mrs. Rumbold: Many people wish to recognise the special nature of Sunday. Interestingly, however, each time that the topic is raised in the House of Commons, very diverse views are expressed. That, I think, clears the stand that the Government have been taking, and their view that the matter cannot be easily resolved. I share some of my hon. Friend's views, but I do not believe that the House is yet ready to accept a proposal from the Government that will command wide support from a large number of hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings

with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Salmond: When the Prime Minister visits Scotland this weekend, will he be big enough to acknowledge that, sooner rather than later, he will have to bow to the wish of the Scottish people for self-determination? Does he not understand that, at a time when even he is forecasting a Europe of up to 30 member states by the end of the century, it is inevitable that the Scottish nation will demand to be a full part of that process of change?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. The Union between England and Scotland is greater than the sum of its parts, and always has been. I understand what activates the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he is profoundly misleading Scotland and treading a path that is damaging Scotland and the Union.

Mr. Fishburn: At a time of economic difficulty and rising unemployment across the world, does not this nation—as a great trading nation—need, more than anything else, constant tax policy, the lowest possible income tax and competitive rates of corporation tax? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster to adopt a policy that changed almost from hour to hour under Labour, with no constancy or purpose of any sort?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of clear-cut and low corporate and personal tax rates. I note that the Opposition's tax plans have gone back to the drawing board; after five years of careful preparation, they have been ditched in a period of five weeks. I also note that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—who said, when he took on the job that there would be
no more phoney shadow Cabinet Budgets"—
has now promised that there will be a phoney shadow Cabinet Budget.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that today's official figures show that the British economy is in its longest recession for over 60 years? As the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor before it started and has been Prime Minister throughout its course, is it not clear that he is not only the Prime Minister of recession, but the prime cause of recession?

The Prime Minister: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes into overdrive, perhaps he will confirm that, in the past three months, industrial production has fallen faster in Germany, faster in France, faster in the United States and faster in Japan than it has in this country; and that, if we take the last year as a whole, industrial production fell more in Japan, and more in Germany, than in the United Kingdom. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that is, if he blames me for everything?

Mr. Kinnock: To put it into perspective, let me point out that since 1988 the German economy has grown by 10 per cent. The British economy, under the Conservative Government, has not grown at all. Will the Prime Minister recognise that and stop groping round to try to find excuses for his own failure? Does he recall that it is exactly a year since he told us in this House, "Our policies are working"? Does he recall that in that 12 months the British economy has contracted by 2·5 per cent. and that


unemployment has gone up by 750,000? Do not today's figures make it clear that it is official—Majorism isn't working?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is now keen to look at a longer period than just the last year, he will also be interested to know that between 1981 and 1991 the British economy grew faster than the German economy, the French economy, the Italian economy or the economy of any other country in Europe. Will he now confirm, since he seems to regard all problems as being entirely domestic, that over the second half of the last year industrial production fell in the United States, in Japan and elsewhere and that Germany's gross domestic product has now declined for three quarters in succession and Germany is in recession? How can this be if, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, it is all a British problem?

Mr. Kinnock: In the last 18 months of recession—[Interruption.] British people are not on the dole in Germany; they are on the dole in Britain.
In the last 18 months of recession, unemployment in Britain has gone up by 1 million and the British economy has contracted by nearly 4 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. During the course of the time the right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister he is convicted by his own record and condemned by his own inaction in the face of the slump that he caused.

The Prime Minister: The House will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the facts and cannot handle the questions. He may recall that in Germany more than 3 million people are unemployed and he may bear it in mind that a higher proportion of people are in work in this country than in Germany or in any other European country except Denmark. Let me try again to help the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the world is in an economic slow-down, as even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has now acknowledged. That makes domestic politics even more important. That is why we have cut interest rates seven times in a year and halved inflation in a year, have the lowest number of strikes for half a century and have cut the basic rate of tax. As a result of our action, real earnings are rising and we have lower interest rates, lower mortgage rates, lower inflation and the right circumstances for recovery. The people of this country will not let the right hon. Gentleman throw that away.

Mr. Stanbrook: When my right hon. Friend sees the new Irish Prime Minister soon will he tell him that the biggest contribution the Irish Republic can make to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to renounce its claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland, as that claim encourages Irish Republican terrorism and gives it legitimacy, as well as being the strongest stumbling block in the way of all-party talks aimed at constitutional progress?

The Prime Minister: I have already spoken to the new Taoiseach and we have agreed to meet shortly. I think that we must wait and see what his detailed policies will be, but everything that I have seen and heard suggests that he is certainly very understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. Amendment of the Irish constitution is, of course, a matter for the Republic, but I am glad that it continues to be an issue that could be tackled in fresh political talks.
The Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement unless and until agreement can be reached on new and more broadly satisfactory arrangements.

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Prime Minister had time today to study the Department of Trade and Industry's figures that were released on Tuesday, which showed that over the last five years Chinese quotas for the importation of cashmere garments into the European Community have been exceeded by 500,000 units and that in 1991 the actual importation exceeded the quotas by over 400 per cent? Is the Prime Minister aware that 500,000 cashmere jerseys are worth £75 million to textile communities such as my own in the central borders in Scotland? Will he take a personal interest in stopping this scandalous dumping and make sure that the overshoot is clawed back during the next two years, the time remaining to the EC-Chinese trade agreement?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, not least because he was courteous enough to give me an indication of what he was going to mention this afternoon. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into the matter and to contact the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Robert McCrindle: To revert to the Scottish question that was raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has the Prime Minister noted the statement today by the leaders of the financial services industries north of the border that in the event of a measure of devolution or independence, to which the Opposition parties aspire, the likeliest result would be that many of the financial services companies would move south of the border? In his forthcoming visit to Scotland, will the Prime Minister underline the fact that these are matters which the Scottish people should also take into account before moving in the direction Opposition Members would like them to go—in favour of devolution or independence?

The Prime Minister: I did notice those remarks, which were widely reported this morning. We have made it clear for a long period that we believe that devolution or independence would damage very severely the degree of inward investment into Scotland and the degree of self-generating investment within Scotland as well. The Union has been in the interests of both this country and Scotland for many years, and it remains so.

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fatchett: May I also raise a matter with the Prime Minister, of which I have given him prior notice? It concerns the tragic death on 5 February of six-year-old Carley Reavill who died in hospital of meningitis. That is the reason why I gave the Prime Minister prior notice of the question. She died not because, as the Department of Health says, she was too ill to be moved, but because,


according to her paediatrician, Dr. Alison Schurtz, no intensive care hospital bed was available at St. Mary's hospital or Great Ormond Street hospital. Is not that a tragic waste of a life? Does it not provide further evidence for the argument that if money is available it should be spent not on tax cuts but on our health service?

The Prime Minister: I asked for a report on this tragic case this morning. As the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I reply assuming that he has received the permission of the family for it to be the subject of a public exchange. I am advised that doctors at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital have confirmed that Carley could not have been transferred when the hospital test results showed that she had meningitis and the test results were available within one hour of Carley's admission. Carley's decline, I am informed, was sudden and fast. Medical advice is that paediatric intensive care is unlikely to have arrested this.
The House may wish to know that between 1979 and 1990 the perinatal mortality rate for England and Wales dropped by 45 per cent. It is now at its lowest ever recorded level. As for national health service resources, the hon. Gentleman will know of the very large real-terms increases that have been made—in excess, in fact, of the real-terms increases promised by the Opposition at the last general election.

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those who live on their income from savings are either widows or those who retired early, very often to look after an elderly dependant? Does he further agree that it would be a grave injustice indeed to put swingeing extra taxes on the savings of these people as a result of the profligacy of socialism?

The Prime Minister: I believe that such people would find it inexplicable if that were to happen. We have sought to encourage savings by abolishing the investment income surcharge and by introducing tax-exempt special savings accounts. It is the Labour party which wants to increase

tax by extending national insurance. Its plans would hit more than 1 million people, three quarters of whom pay tax at the basic rate. So much for the Opposition's promise that no one earning under £20,000 a year would be hit. That promise is worthless and that pledge by the Opposition illustrates why the promise is worthless.

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the stabbing to death of the young black schoolboy Rolan Adams and in the year since then 15 black families—council tenants and owner-occupiers—have been driven out of their homes on the Thamesmead estate. The campaign, including a fire-bombing, has been orchestrated by the local headquarters of the British National party. Is there anything that the Government can do to change those events? Will the Prime Minister support the unanimous decision by Greenwich Conservative councillors to support the demonstration called by the Anti-Racist Alliance for Saturday at noon in Plumstead High street to demand the closure of the British National party headquarters?

The Prime Minister: I have every sympathy for Rolan Adams's family at this sad time and I wholeheartedly condemn racial attacks and those who commit or incite racial hatred. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in December and my office subsequently corresponded with the mayor of Bexley. Although the location of the British National party office is a matter for Bexley council, we have drawn the council's attention to the laws available to deal with racial hatred.
The local police searched the BNP premises in January and evidence has been submitted to the Crown prosecution service which is considering a prosecution. Rolan Adams's murder a year ago led to the speedy identification and prosecution of the attackers and the murderer subsequently received a life sentence. I very much hope that in the future that will deter similar attacks which are a blot on our country.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order
Proceedings on the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords]
Motion on the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations
WEDNESDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Debate on inflation on a Government motion
Motion on the Fire Service College Trading Fund Order.
THURSDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions
MONDAY 2 MARCH—Until seven o'clock motion to take note of EC documents relating to asylum and immigration; details will be given in the Official Report.
Debate on the report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Monday 2 March
Floor of the House
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 8810/91 Right of Asylum
(b) 8811/91 Immigration

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 24-x (1991–92)
(b) HC 24-x (1991–92)]

Dr. Cunningham: Has the Leader of the House had time to consider the High Court's decision that computer evidence on the non-payment of poll tax is inadmissible in magistrates courts? Is he aware that, as a consequence, local authorities will be denied revenue of about £3 million each week until the Government's belated action to correct this appalling blunder in their legislation comes into effect? Will the Government compensate local authorities and local poll tax payers for their inefficiency in the poll tax legislation, which means that the biggest single cause of non-payment and non-collection of the poll tax is the action of Her Majesty's Government and their appalling and inadequate legislation? May we have a statement on this important issue next week from the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Why does the Leader of the House persist in giving the Government Supply days, as he is planning to do again next week, when he cannot find time for the proper consideration of legislation and introduces guillotines almost weekly? He cannot find time to give the Opposition

Supply days, but he can find time—[Interruption.] We are talking about next week's business—but he can find time to allocate to the Government. We are very happy to debate the Government's abysmal economic performance, of course, but should not he think harder about finding time for more Opposition Supply days before the end of this Parliament?
Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance—if not today, certainly in his business statement next week —that, following the Budget on 10 March, we shall have the normal allocation of time to debate the Budget proposals? If there is to be a general election on 9 April, the proclamation will have to be announced on Monday 16 March, so how will the Government allocate proper time for debate on the Budget in that short period? Will he assure us that the Budget debate will not be truncated and that we shall have the normal period to debate the Government's proposals?

Mr. MacGregor: As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will know that it was not the Government who caused, in the case of some local authorities, considerable funds not to be paid as a result of non-payment of the community charge; it was the action of those who did not pay their community charge, as most responsible citizens did. It was certainly aided and abetted by the members of the Opposition and the many Labour councillors who actively encouraged them not to pay, so the hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with that. We must be clear where the fault lies.
On the question of computer evidence in magistrates court cases, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are taking action as quickly as possible by means of an amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill in another place. I hope that we shall have his support for that amendment when the Bill returns to this House. As so many of his hon. Friends have encouraged non-payment, he can now assist us by actively supporting that amendment.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question about a debate next week on inflation, he knows that I have been pressed on many occasions to find Government time to debate the economy. I am happy to agree to that as Second Reading debates are progressing. Incidentally, I have been very fair to the Opposition with regard to Supply days. After yesterday's Supply day, there is a heavy demand from my colleagues for more such days. The Opposition were routed yesterday and their Front-Bench spokesmen were wiped off the floor.
On the question of a normal allocation of time for the Budget debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is not a matter for next week's business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make the plea which I made last week, the week before and the week before that: will hon. Members confine business questions today to the business for next week? There will be opportunities during next week's debates to make party political points.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 are now quite inadequate to deal with the growing problem of travellers in many constituencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) mentioned earlier? May we have an


urgent debate on this subject next week to discuss ways in which these two pieces of legislation may be strengthened and whether we should introduce a new criminal offence of aggravated trespass?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the concern felt in many constituencies about travellers. I understand that there was a question about it earlier this afternoon. I shall certainly discuss it further with my right hon. Friend, but I will not be able to find time for a debate in Government time next week.

Sir Russell Johnston: Given the wild enthusiasm for Opposition Supply days that the Leader of the House tell us now exists among Conservative Members, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recalls that, by this time last year, and in 1990, there had been a Liberal Democrat Supply day? I know that approaches have been made through the usual channels. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will follow precedent and arrange for a Supply day the week after next?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give that precise assurance, but I can say that minority parties are normally allowed about one sixth of the Supply days, and that we have had five Labour party Supply clays. I am working pretty well to the normal timetable. I am aware that there has been discussion about the matter, and I shall certainly keep it in mind.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will know of my concern about standards of reporting in broadcasting in this country, and I know that he shares that concern. I wonder whether he read the centre pages of the Evening Standard last night, which were about an extraordinary incident that seems to have taken place on the BBC television "Nine O'clock News". Someone who was interviewed was portrayed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is just the point that I was seeking to make. Is this question about a debate next week?

Mr. Tracey: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: It does not sound like it.

Mr. Tracey: Somebody who was interviewed on the news was portrayed as being deprived but was subsequently revealed to be far from that, and was possibly a "plant". May we have an urgent debate on bias in broadcasting in the BBC news?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the newspaper report, and, although I did not see the news programme, it seemed to me that it not only gave a distorted impression of the whole student situation but failed to make the point that we have one of the most generous student support systems of all equivalent countries. Furthermore, a single example was given—a sample of one—and it turned out to be highly distorted. I agree with my hon. Friend that the programme was an example of highly biased reporting which should not have happened. I cannot promise a debate on the subject next week, but I hope that the authorities in the BBC will consider the case carefully. I am aware of the concern among my hon. Friends.

Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside the continued Tory vendetta against the BBC, when business

is due to be announced and the Secretary of State for the Environment is due to speak, will the Leader of the House make it clear that the right hon. Gentleman's speech will be a renewal of his leadership campaign to decide who will be Leader of the Opposition after 9 April?

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to yesterday's debate, I notice that there is a renewed campaign about who should be shadow Chancellor.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Now that we have been given the opportunity to see that the national health service reform proposals are working extremely well, and that the only suggestion from the Opposition is that the whole lot should be reversed and the monolithic NHS, which worked so patchily in the past, should be restored, may we have a debate in which the poverty of the Opposition proposals could be exposed and the very good story that we have to tell about the NHS reforms could be fully told?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that a debate would be desirable. Labour's so-called health policy amounts to a wrecker's charter, wrecking so many of the benefits that the NHS reforms are already bringing, and makes it clear that they would bring back trade union domination, putting union demands before patients' needs. I agree with my hon. Friend that we may wish to debate the issue, but I do not think that I could accommodate a debate next week.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come back to the Chamber this afternoon and make a statement on this morning's High Court ruling in favour of my constituents David and Eleanor Bullard, and against the Government's persistent illegal use of uncorroborated computer printouts in poll tax cases in magistrates courts? The ruling puts a question mark over 11 million liability orders in England and Wales—[Interruption.] Tory Members may shout, as if we were talking about a minority of people, but this matter affects more than one in four of all adults in this country.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to conduct from today an urgent review of each of the 170 people, including 13 pensioners, 35 people who are unemployed and four whose only income was invalidity benefit, who have been put in prison on the basis of uncorroborated computer evidence, so that their cases may be considered and compensation can be paid?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the vast majority of people are incensed by the fact that some people have not paid their community charge when they are perfectly able to do so. Within the community charge system, there are benefits and rebates for those on lower incomes and for those most in need. The fault lies with those who do not comply with the law as everyone else does. On the point about magistrates courts, I have already made plain what the Government are doing.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is many, many months since the tragic events at Hillsborough. He will equally be aware that, for many of the relatives of those who lost their lives—11 of my constituents died at Hillsborough—the anguish goes on, because they are still not satisfied that the truth has come out of the inquiry. For them, that is the only way in


which they can put their loved ones finally to rest. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Attorney-General to address the issue as a matter of urgency? Every day it goes on brings renewed anguish to those tragic families.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand, of course, the concern that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of the families. We all recall that tragic day. Without commenting on the details, because I do not know them, I will raise the case with my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday, Mr. Malcolm Edwards, the commercial director of British Coal, informed the Select Committee on Energy that, if the present energy policies of National Power, PowerGen and the Government continued, the outlook would be more pessimistic than suggested in the Rothschild report which suggested that the number of pits would go down to about 14? Mr. Edwards suggested that the figure would be 12.
Is the Leader of the House also aware that, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was in Committee, Associated British Ports, through its mouthpiece, Mr. Frank Layfield QC, misled the Committee? In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging an urgent debate next week on the future of the mining industry?

Mr. MacGregor: We have already had a number of debates affecting the mining industry, so I cannot promise a debate next week. I am aware of the view that one individual put to the Select Committee yesterday. The Government's aim is to create the largest economic United Kingdom coal industry that the market can support in the longer term. We do not accept that the industry will be reduced to 12 pits. The future size will depend on the performance of the industry itself. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is encouraging that Boyds, the United States mining engineers, has found great scope for further productivity improvements, so British Coal should be well placed to compete in price with imported coal and to secure the lion's share of the electricity market by offering competitively priced coal.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement either today or on Monday on the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill, and on the Government's response to the debate in Committee and on Second Reading on the Transport and Works Bill? The Minister for Shipping said in Committee that that was not the place to talk about the level of alcohol that a public service driver of a train or of a national bus could take.
Given the level of debate on Second Reading on 2 December and the Minister's comments in column 45 of Hansard, and given the comments made in Committee, it would be appropriate to find some way of ascertaining the Government's attitude on that important issue. At present, the Government say, in effect, that it is all right for a train driver to have five glasses of wine before driving a train. I raise the matter especially because it is almost 20 years since the Eltham Well Hall crash, when six people died and 126 were injured. It was one of the rare events in which a public service driver was over the limit.

Mr. MacGregor: I know that the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill has been recommended by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration on Monday evening. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great interest that has been created in Northern Ireland about the on-going constitutional debate—that is, whether there should be devolution to Scotland and Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some advice on what procedures my hon. Friends and I should follow and what facilities he will make available to us and to hon. Members from elsewhere in the United Kingdom to attend debates of the Grand Committees in Scotland and Wales whenever those Committees discuss the constitutional position of Scotland and Wales?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows the position in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee, but I very much agree with what is behind his question: there is considerable interest throughout the United Kingdom in those constitutional matters, and rightly so because the implications go much wider than Scotland. I cannot say how that matter might be taken forward at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are four half-day debates being given to the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make clear those wider implications in the debate.

Sir Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the accommodation that is given to servants of the House who must stay overnight in this Palace, and will he examine the facilities that are offered to them? Will he also consider a change so that we ourselves, rather than the Department of the Environment, have responsibility?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend suggests, under the Ibbs proposals, we will have responsibility for that matter from 1 April. I do not think that a debate is necessary. My hon. Friend can raise the matter through the appropriate committees that we are now setting up.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that we will be given the opportunity of having four full days to consider the Budget statement, in particular because one of those days must be given to the debate on industry? I shall want to expose Volvo Bus of Sweden's secret agenda for the United Kingdom, which is to close down the British bus industry and switch its production to plants principally in Sweden.

Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have frequently said to him that he must find his own way of raising that matter, and I notice that he has not yet done so. On his first point, he will know that I have not announced the Budget for next week. I must obey your strictures, Mr. Speaker, and not deal with that matter now.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on national health service trusts? It has just been announced by the Opposition that they would abolish such trusts. A debate would give us an opportunity, among many other things, to mention the independent survey of 900 patients in eight national health service trust hospitals who had been in those hospitals


before and after they became trusts. Those patients were asked, "Is the hospital better, the same, or worse?" Forty-eight per cent. said that the hospitals were better as trusts, and about 42 per cent. said that they were much the same. Nearly 90 per cent. said that trust hospitals are either satisfactory or very satisfactory.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his point very well, and I entirely agree with him. Indeed, it is one of the features that I hope that we will be able to debate, certainly in the coming weeks and months, the Opposition's health policy. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that all the efforts and enthusiasm of the many thousands of people making a success of NHS trust status and GP fund holding would come to naught under Labour. The patients who have clearly said that they would benefit would also find that those benefits did not continue.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I know not whether the Leader of the House heard the Radio 4 programme this morning concerning Mr. Payne, who was convicted of murder 20 or more years ago and who has served increasingly lengthy periods in prison although he has always denied the offence. On that programme, it was said that instances of interference by political appointees, either the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Minister of State, in the decisions of the Parole Board have risen from 3 per cent. to 30 per cent. over the past five to 10 years. Bearing in mind the liberty of the citizen, will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on whether decisions on life sentences should be made by Parole Board officials or whether they should be made by the Secretary of State of the day or his officials? Often the liberty of the individual is denied for no reason at all.

Mr. MacGregor: I did not hear the broadcast this morning, so I cannot comment on it. There is no time for a debate in Government time on the matter next week.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House consider discussions through the usual channels on whether, instead of a debate on the Adjournment, the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House could be on a positive motion? That would perhaps allow us to agree to the report generally so that, after the election, a Government could proceed in the knowledge that the House had agreed, not on every aspect but in principle, to reform the sitting hours of the House. Many people in the House wish to see such reform.

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point; it enables me to make clear the position on the debate that I have announced for a week on Monday. The report of the Select Committee will be published tomorrow. I am sure that the whole House will wish to see it and to join me in expressing warm thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the members of his Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for the extremely hard and swift work that they have done to enable the report to come before the House.
My hon. Friend is entirely right in intimating that there is great interest in the report. I am very much aware of that from the many representations that I have received. That is why I thought it right to give the House an early opportunity to express its views on the report and its recommendations and why I acted particularly swiftly. I

hope that the House will have enough time to study the report. It is not particularly long so it should be possible for the House to do so. The form chosen for the debate —a motion of the Adjournment—is the best way to ensure an open and full debate. Thereafter we can consider how the House should move forward to take decisions on the report's recommendations.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is considerable interest in Wales, too, in the constitutional issue. We understand that the Secretary of State for Wales is agreeable to the Welsh Grand Committee meeting in Wales, possibly on 9 March, to discuss that very issue. Will the Leader of the House inform us whether, in the course of next week, as required under Standing Order No. 98, he will table a motion to amend the Standing Order to enable the Committee to meet on Monday 9 March? If it does not happen next week, will he give an assurance that it will happen before the appropriate date?

Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keen to have a debate and has suggested that it should be held in Wales. In principle, I see no objection to that; indeed, I see advantages in it. The difficulty is that it involves a change in Standing Orders. I was not aware of the deadline to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We shall have to consider that matter.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anyone who had been holding his breath for the appearance of the Government's White Paper on railway privatisation would long ago have expired? May I assume that the reason for the delay is that sanity is beginning to prevail and that the Government intend to seek to define the problems of the railways before proposing a specific solution? That being so, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to announce that the Government have no intention of producing a White Paper containing such solutions before the election? If he did so, he would save demands on valuable time next week.

Mr. MacGregor: I can make no such statement. All I can say is that the Government are considering the whole matter thoroughly. They are right to do so, because the issue raises major matters. Therefore, it is right for the Government to spend a good deal of time on it. I cannot give the precise timing. The matter does not need to take up a great deal of time next week.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Will the Leader of the House reconsider initiating a debate next week on the important issue of the Government's reforms of the national health service, with special reference to the 13·8 per cent. reduction in fees for NHS treatment paid to dentists? In Bristol, 180 dentists—virtually all the NHS dentists in Bristol and Avon—met last Tuesday and took the decision that, if the Government force the 13·8 per cent. reduction in their fees for treating NHS patients, they will restrict new health service patients from 1 March arid some practices will terminate the treatment of new NHS patients. Obviously, that is of great concern throughout the country and not merely in Bristol, where the Secretary of State for Health is a Member of Parliament, because dental hygiene is vital.

Mr. MacGregor: The Government continue to negotiate with dentists' representatives. A further meeting


took place this afternoon. As part of those discussions, my right hon. and hon. Friends agreed to re-examine, in association with the dentists' representatives, detailed elements of fee levels. At the next formal meeting in May, the results of that work will be considered and fee scales set accordingly. Meanwhile, the proposed reduction in fees will not be implemented, so a debate next week is not necessary.

Mr. James Hill: Can my right hon. Friend make room next week for a debate on European Commission legislation which, it is rumoured, will allow domestic animals to be imported and exported across the channel without any check for rabies? That concerns my constituents in Southampton, where there is a large port and several marinas. The Government should do anything they can to restrict that legislation, as rabies is a killer disease for humans and for animals.

Mr. MacGregor: I share my hon. Friend's concern. I think that he knows that the Government have no intention of supporting any proposal which would increase the risk of rabies being introduced into this country. Scientific evidence on rabies control measures is being reassessed at Community level. Formal proposals from the Commission will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way.

Mr. Bob Cryer: A week on Monday there will be a debate on the report by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House. Would the Leader of the House consider making a change so that we might debate facilities in the House for disabled people? I remind him that last summer I brought a group of blind students from Temple Bank school for the visually handicapped in Bradford to the House. There is nowhere for them to sit and nowhere for them to have a meal, so they had to walk out, leading each other to a nearby park to have something to eat. At the same time, the private dining rooms were full of corporate hospitality, with Members wining and dining chums and using the facilities there. Those dining room bookings are not published, to maintain a cloak of secrecy.
Could we have a debate on such facilities, coupled with a debate on the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests on the lobbying organisations which book dining rooms through Members? That report has been in the hands of the Leader of the House for two or three months, yet the report which proposes that our sitting hours should be cut and looks after the selfish interests of Members of Parliament is to be given priority. That is completely wrong.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman talks total nonsense. The report goes way beyond the question of sittings and deals with a number of other important matters of procedure. I know that the vast majority of hon. Members would agree that many Members wish the subject of sittings to be debated, considered and probably changed. That has been made clear to me throughout my time as Leader of the House, and that is what all the pressure has been for. Therefore, it is right for us to give early consideration to the report of the Committee. That would be the wish of most hon. Members.
On the other matters which the hon. Gentleman raised, it is not necessary to have a debate a week on Monday,

because he will know that the appropriate Committee of the House is considering the possibility of extending refreshment facilities for Members' guests.

Mr. Cryer: That is what was said last summer.

Mr. MacGregor: The Committee is actively considering the matter. Also, as the hon. Gentleman knows, some building work will be required, and it is studying that.
On the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I hope to find time for that in due course, but the Select Committee on Sittings of the House undoubtedly takes precedence.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It has just been announced that the European Community has broken all records by spending more than £1,000 million this year on dumping high-tar tobacco in the third world and in eastern Europe. Although I appreciate that the Government can do nothing about that shameful expenditure, will the Leader of the House ensure that, next week, out of respect for the sufferers from that expenditure in the third world, the Government will not submit any more supplementary estimates to cover excessive and unlawful expenditure by the European Community?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been as critical as anyone of the common agricultural policy regime on tobacco. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I endeavoured to get that policy changed substantially. The supplementary estimates were passed in accordance with the procedures of the House, following a debate. That is why they were accepted.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the Minister for the Environment and the Countryside returns on Monday from the important weekend conference in Estoril on ozone layer depletion, will he report to the House? There is the possibility of 300,000 skin cancers—that is not an alarmist forecast, but a NASA statistic—and if anything is to be done about that appalling prospect in the northern hemisphere, it must be done early, before the spring conditions of April and May.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall consider in what way my hon. Friend can, if appropriate, report to the House.

Mr. Conal Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on the Representation of the People Act 1983, in view of the widespread practice in the student community of planning for and voting twice at parliamentary elections? Will he draw to the attention of the House the fact that that offence may result in a penalty of £2,000 as well as disfranchisement? May we have a debate to allow us to consider abuses by the student community at the ballot box?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is correct. Voting twice in a parliamentary election or byelection is an offence and it is subject to a fine of up to £2,000. I am happy to underline that fact, to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention. I shall consider what other steps we might take to draw further attention to the issue.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There is widespread interest on both sides of the House on the constitutional issues affecting Scotland and Wales. I wish to encourage that, because such matters should be approached constructively. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, subsequent to the Scottish Grand Committee


sitting in Edinburgh on Monday, he will bring forward an opportunity for the other two half matter days to be taken by that Committee so that we can consider the other constitutional options open to the people of Scotland? Surely we must debate all the options before the general election.

Mr. MacGregor: I know that another two half-matter days have been proposed, but I do not know when they will be taken.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that freedom of speech and the conduct of elections are paramount to the House? Will he find time to debate those issues in light of The Sunday Times court ruling yesterday which prevents local authorities from taking action on libel? Isle of Wight county council threatened my previous agent, John Bull, with libel as a result of pressure from the ruling group of Liberal Democrats, for remarks that he made during the borough elections. The Liberal Democrats continue to use taxpayers' and chargepayers' money to pressurise officers of the county council to try to gag proper debate on the Isle of Wight.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on that matter next week, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point that he makes. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will find other ways of raising the matter in the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was very disappointed to hear no mention in the business statement of the remaining stages of the Offshore Safety Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it sailed through its Committee stage on Tuesday morning. It has widespread support in the House and among those people who have members of their families working offshore. There is a growing belief in Scotland that the Bill may fall by the wayside because of the forthcoming election. That would be a great shame because we have all been waiting for the Bill, which was born out of the excellent Cullen report. On behalf of all those men and women who work in our offshore installations and standby vessels, I make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman that he bring the Bill to the Floor of the House for its remaining stages as soon as possible.

Mr. MacGregor: As the House knows, I am trying to accommodate as many Bills as possible, as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the need to give them full and proper consideration. I entirely agree about the importance of getting that Bill on the statute book, and I hope that we shall be able to do so.

Sir Michael Neubert: Will there be an opportunity next week to debate early-day motion 710?
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take the necessary steps to ensure that all television programmes, including party political broadcasts, on all channels, which report on, or comment on, political matters are signed and subtitled, so that the two and a half million people who are deaf or hard of hearing are put on a par with the general hearing public in the run up to the general election.]
It proposes that all political broadcasts on television be signed and subtitled for the deaf and hard of hearing. Would not such a proposal inflict unnecessary suffering on

many people? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while there can be few advantages to the distressing disability of deafness, not hearing party political broadcasts must be one of them?

Mr. MacGregor: I was about to give my hon. Friend a different answer, because I thought that his question would go in a different direction. As he will know, programme content and scheduling are matters for the broadcasters, not for the Government. In this case, it is for them to decide.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Could the Leader of the House arrange, before the debate on inflation next week, for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on how he proposes to establish the financial arrangements for community-based training programmes? They have done an excellent job in the past, but they are under pressure at present, despite the fact that they have done a great deal, throughout the Province, to help young people and to keep them out of the hands of the paramilitaries.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about those programmes, and I shall draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will it he possible to have an early debate on early-day motion 263 in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and myself?
[That this House opposes proposals arising from the review of its regional organisation by the Ministry of. Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; considers that the proposal to reduce the Ministry's five regional and divisional offices Eastern England to one regional centre at Cambridge will substantially diminish its service to the farming community in that region, will reduce the effectiveness of such conservation schemes as the environmentally sensitive areas and set aside schemes and will prevent the Ministry from implementing EC proposals for reforming the Comnzon Agricultural Policy; and calls for the Ministry to establish a second regional centre in Norwich.]
It criticises proposals for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reduce the number of offices in eastern England from five to one. Will my right hon.. Friend particularly bear in mind the fact that the matter needs to be reviewed in the light of the recent volte-face by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food office in Truro?

Mr. MacGregor: I am familiar with the situation. The concentration of administrative work at fewer regional centres will significantly improve the cost-effectiveness of the operations of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, including the service that it provides to its customers. The matter has been thoroughly aired, and I cannot promise a debate on it in Government time next week.

Mr. Derek Enright: The Home Secretary has written to inform me that 11 million summonses have been issued for non-payment of the poll tax. Can we debate next week the legislation that demands that local authorities prosecute the estates of people who have died for their share of the poll tax, particularly in the case of many of my constituents, whose estates cannot even pay for their funerals?

Mr. MacGregor: I see no way in which that issue can be raised in the business that I have announced for next week.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider his reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who asked for more Opposition day debates? Will he consider, in the light of developments this week, having such a debate next week? Is he aware that this week in the Chamber the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was unable to name a single strike that the Labour party had condemned in the past 13 years? Is he also aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was unable to name a single economist who approved of increasing taxes as a way out of recession? Would not an Opposition day debate next week give the public an opportunity to see that, when the Labour party has to answer questions on its policies, those answers are about as straight as a right-angled bend?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that a number of the points that he raises can be discussed during our debate next Wednesday. There can be no doubt that the Labour party's policies on taxation and, inevitably, on borrowing—given its high spending policies —will lead to inflation. Therefore, the issue will be directly relevant to next Wednesday's debate. It will be interesting to see which speakers the Opposition choose for that debate. Whoever they are, I am quite sure that we shall have the same resounding victory next week as we did this week when comparing the policies of the two parties.

Mr. Harry Barnes: According to the best available estimates, including a parliamentary answer, more than 3 per cent. of the population are missing from the electoral register. That is unique in this country in modern times, and it is a serious issue that should concern Conservative Members—indeed, any hon. Member. May we have a statement next week, together with full details of the figures, constituency by constituency, on the current electoral register as electoral returning officers had until last Sunday to return the complete figures, which are now available in the Department of Health, and which it will not reveal to the House? We need a full, frank investigation of the current position before we move closer to the general election. Today is the last day for sending in registration details if there is to be a general election on 9 April. We are now in the final position, so we need the final information so that we can discuss it.

Mr. MacGregor: I have noticed, week after week, the hon. Gentleman's obsession with the electoral register. I think that there must be something other than he suggests behind his concern. He is obviously getting even more apprehensive as the general election approaches. It is entirely up to the individual, who is always encouraged to register for voting. The Government spend about half a million pounds every year on publicity to encourage people to register, so we are doing everything that we can in the way of encouragement.

Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend is renowned for being a fair person. May I refer him to Wednesday's debate on inflation? Does he appreciate that, inadvertently, he will cause the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer his broad back to the knife throwers behind him. I offer my right hon. Friend a

solution: he should invite my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to open on behalf of the Government so that we can flush out Her Majesty's Leader of the Opposition and listen to his solutions, once and for all, to our economic problems.

Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that my action was not inadvertent. I am looking forward to hearing what the Opposition spokesmen say in next week's debate on inflation. Perhaps the right solution would be for both of them to speak so that we could spot the differences.

Mr. Max Madden: May we have a statement next week on moving mentally handicapped people from hospitals into the community? Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Health to investigate what is happening at Westwood hospital, in Bradford? Is he aware that that hospital is being emptied, and there is widespread suspicion that the local health authority hopes that it will become empty next year when it can be closed without the inconvenience of having to consult properly with the community or obtain the permission and approval of the Secretary of State for Health? Surely that is a scandal, and the clear intention behind the secret closure of the hospital is to enable the community health trust to flog off the hospital and its extensive grounds for an enormous profit. That scandal should be investigated, the patients should be prevented from being removed, there should be a proper investigation, and proper procedures should be observed.

Mr. MacGregor: From the information that is available to me, the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. Bradford health authority conducted a full public consultation between August and November 1990 on its proposals for the development of services for people with learning disabilities, and that included the future role of Westwood hospital. It is currently consulting the community health council about the next phase of those plans. The health authority has confirmed that it will continue to consult with the health council and other interested parties on its proposals. There is widespread public consultation, so it would not be appropriate to have a debate next week.

Mr. John Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a letter which is circulating in Battersea purports to show that a certain Mr. Phil Brown is a Liberal Democrat councillor for the area? Given that there is not a single Liberal Democrat councillor in the London borough of Wandsworth, and that in the constituency of Battersea there was not even a single Liberal Democrat candidate at the last borough elections, could my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for the Environment so that we can discuss the legality of the use of the word "councillor" and so that the Liberal Democrat spokesman on that subject can explain this disreputible, dirty trick?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend will wish strongly to pursue the matter locally. If I heard him aright, it seems that the Liberal Democrats are trying to establish that they have a presence in that area when they certainly have not.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Has the Leader of the House read early-day motion 713?
[That this House deplores the actions of Dr. Gwyn Jones in obtaining a grant of £16,895 in July 1988 under false pretences from the Welsh Development Agency Rural Conversion Grant Scheme, four months after being appointed Chairman-designate of the Welsh Development Agency; notes that the grant was awarded for converting the Old Flour Mill at Porthmadog into craft workshops, whereas in the event it was converted into residential accommodation; notes further that Dr. Jones has recently made a partial repayment of the grant of £3,395; and urges the Agency to seek repayment in full from its Chairman, lest any other Chairman-designate of any public body follows his example in attempting to defraud the body of which they are about to become Chairman.]
It has been signed by me and seven other hon. Members and severely criticises the conduct of the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, Dr. Gwyn Jones, for obtaining a grant of £17,000 from the WDA while he was chairman-designate of the agency for building craft workshops in Porthmadog.
Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Wales, as I understand from yesterday's proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee that a minor repayment of £3,395 has now been made by Dr. Jones to the agency which he chairs? The repayments started only three weeks ago, whereas Dr. Jones was warned by Mr. Evan Lloyd Jones, the monitoring officer for the agency for north Wales, that the development at the old flour mill in Porthmadog was not craft workshops and did not comply with the terms for a grant under the rural conversion grant scheme.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State on nominated bodies that are staffed and stuffed with Tory rejects and are the means that the Government use to rule Wales? That should shortly come to an end.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand that, at yesterday's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the agency's accounting officer promised a full note.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Members who are standing, but I ask them to be brief because we need to move on to the next debate.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the "Can't pay, won't pay" campaign which is being conducted by people who are best described as poll tax parasites? In that debate we could highlight the fact that those people are trying to unload their local government costs and the legal costs that they incur on to their honest, law-abiding tax-paying neighbours.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point that law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are having to pay for the non-payment by others of the community charge. We have deplored that on many occasions and will continue to do so.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On Monday's business, has my right hon. Friend received a clear indication from the Labour Opposition that they will support the prevention of terrorism order or, as I suspect, does my right hon. Friend know that they will be soft on terrorism again and will not support the order?

Mr. MacGregor: That is not a matter for me, but at the moment I am not aware of what the Opposition's stance will be.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: As he has visited Bristol twice in the past few weeks and has been warmly welcomed by the residents of that great city, my right hon. Friend will be aware that Avon county council has refused to use the criminal law to evict travellers from illegal sites. Consequently, my constituents in Royate hill have for 15 months suffered death threats, violence, crime and squalor. Is it not about time that we had a debate not just on travellers' needs but on residents' rights? May we have a debate on amending the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986?

Mr. MacGregor: I know of the strong feeling that exists in my hon. Friend's constituency. As he rightly pointed out, I have visited it twice in recent months, and on both occasions the matter was raised with me with considerable force and vigour. I sympathise, and understand exactly why that is so.
I am aware that concern is felt about the operation of the Acts that my hon. Friend mentioned. We shall certainly have to turn our attention to that matter, but I am afraid that it will not be possible to debate it next week.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the difficulties experienced by insulin-dependent diabetics? Although they are grateful for the Government's sanctioning of free autolet needles, they are seeking an extension to the free prescribing of pen needles, for which there is an urgent need in particular cases. A specific group in my constituency is experiencing such a need, but I believe that it exists throughout the country.

Mr. MacGregor: The Department of Health recognises that injection pens offer a convenient alternative to disposable syringes, which are already on prescription, but the cost is significant. A decision to make them available on prescription must therefore be made in the light of available resources and other competing priorities. Pens and other needles may be provided free through a hospital when a consultant considers them necessary on clinical grounds.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: May we have an early debate on the gross misuse of stolen Government documents by Opposition Members? Would not that give us an opportunity to discuss the appalling double standards shown by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who seems content to use and receive stolen property for his own political devices, but who, when his source appears to dry up, suddenly becomes enamoured of the idea of a freedom of information Act that would make his irresponsible and deceitful actions wholly illegal?

Mr. MacGregor: I note that, so far, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has favoured highly selective leaks. He seems to disaprove of all leaks other than those for which he is responsible.

Mr. Bob Dunn: May I revert to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who drew attention to the urgent need for a debate on the national health service next week? A debate would give many of us an opportunity to


highlight the success of general practitioner budget holding—especially in Longfield and New Ash Green, in the Dartford constituency, which contains one of the first waves of budget holders. Perhaps, during the same debate, we could wish every success to the Dartford East health centre, which will adopt budget holding from 1 April.

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that, in the coming weeks and months, the House will have many opportunities to debate the issue, and to highlight the fact that GP fund-holding measures are working extremely well—and that the Labour party is making a great mistake by pledging to get rid of them.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the administration of justice in Greater London, and, in particular, on the independence of magistrates? A view is circulating in Greater London—it is, in fact, the view of the Greater London Labour party—that magistrates should be subject to party discipline, and should follow what is described as the party line on justice. I do not know what that means, but it sounds extremely sinister. I think that we should establish, and let people in London know, precisely what Labour means by this.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not know what that means, and I do not know too much about it at this stage; but I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue the matter further. Certainly, if what he has described were the case, it would be absolutely deplorable.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Given the imminence of the general election, may we have a debate, as a matter of urgency, on the funding of political parties so that we can discuss—among other things—the recent £500-a-head Labour party fund-raising dinner? Does my right hon. Friend consider that the main significance of the

dinner is the fact that only people who can afford to £500 for a dinner can afford to vote Labour, or the fact that only under a Tory Government can people afford to spend so much on such a daft dinner?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own inimitable way. Certainly the disposable income of a large number of people throughout the country would be substantially reduced—considerably reduced—if Labour were ever in a position to carry out its tax and spending policies.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: With the general election not too far away, would it not be a good idea to debate some more substantial issues before it is called? The Prime Minister has said that he believes in a classless society. Why do we not have a proper debate about that before the election? Why do we not have a debate about the fact that if there is to be a classless society we shall need to get rid of the House of Lords, the honours list, tax-assisted private education, private health treatment and queue-jumping? And it would not be a bad idea if we were to have a debate about taxing the Queen's income.

Mr. MacGregor: I should be very happy at some point to have a debate about the classless society. In such a debate, we could point out that the average living standard of people in this country has risen by about one third in real terms during the period of the Conservative Government, that 4 million people have become home owners for the first time, that personal pensions and occupational pensions have been hugely extended, and that the savings of so many people have greatly risen. Such a debate would enable us also to point out that many of the other changes we have introduced have been actively used by members of the Labour party, to their benefit. There is no doubt that the classless and much wider owner-occupying society has been achieved by the Conservative party. The Labour policies about which we are beginning to hear would set that back greatly.

Carley Reavill

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions today my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) put to the Prime Minister a question concerning the appalling tragedy that had befallen Carley Reavill. May we have it on the record that the Prime Minister seems to have been misadvised about this tragic case? Dr. Alison Shurtz has confirmed that Carley was diagnosed as having meningitis shortly after arrival at Queen Elizabeth II hospital, and she would have been transferred to another hospital if an intensive paediatric care bed had been available. Dr. Duncan Matthews, of the Great Ormond Street hospital, has said that critically ill children are being denied intensive care treatment because there is not any money to make beds available. It was the shortage of beds, caused by the shortage of funding in the national health service, that led to this appalling tragedy.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order for me. It seems to be a continuation of Question Time.

Mr. Dickens: I promise—

Mr. Speaker: Try to make it a point of order for me.

Mr. Dickens: Do you. Mr. Speaker, think that it would be helpful to you and to the House to know where that information came from so that a judgment might be made?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would be helpful to me. This is not a point of order for me.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four Questions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

That the draft Commonwealth Development Corporation (Raising of Limits on Borrowing and Advances) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
Question agreed to

Orders of the Day — Transport and Works Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the political law of detailed explanation. Normally when a Minister has given a detailed reason why something cannot happen, life changes—for example, when it is explained in detail why a polytechnic cannot be called a university, and within six months the Government change their policy and bring in a Bill to allow that change; or when a Minister explains the practical advantages of the community charge, and a short time later the community charge is changed to the council tax; or when it is explained why HIV victims cannot he compensated and then there is a change. That normally comes about because, when a Minister gives a detailed explanation, it is possible to engage in debate and the Government can review their proposals.
As it is not easy to extend the time for Second Reading of a Bill—this Bill had a half-day Second Reading debate —and as there are rules about what may be considered on Report, might my hon. Friend the Minister be invited to see whether, between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, he can find some means of meeting, in private if not in public, an all-party delegation to consider whether the limits for public service vehicle drivers proposed in the Bill, which, if the Bill is passed, can be changed by regulation, might be reduced?

Mr. Speaker: That is surely a matter that could be raised on Third Reading. I imagine that it forms part of the Bill and that it can therefore be raised on Third Reading.

Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I had assumed that what was not in the Bill, which is a different set of limits, could not be discussed. This is not the time to go through what happened in Committee. It is worth pointing out, however, that, on the eighth day of the Committee, a very detailed opening discussion, or Second Reading discussion, was introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Other hon. Members, who were not members of the Committee, would, I believe, have liked to take part in that debate. I suspect that your guidance will be useful to the House. It may also be that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will want to consider my suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: It will be for the hon. Member to raise that matter on Third Reading, if he catches the eye of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman asks the Minister to see a delegation, I have no doubt that he will be willing to do so.

New clause 2

MAINTENANCE OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

'.—(1) Section 36 of the Highways Act 1980 (highways maintainable at public expense) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (c), the word "and" shall be omitted.


(3) After paragraph (d) of subsection (2), there shall be added—

(e) a highway, being a footpath or bridleway, created in consequence of a rail crossing diversion order, or of an order made under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964, or of an order made under section 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.

(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(3A) Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) above shall not apply to a footpath or bridleway, or to any part of a footpath or bridleway, which by virtue of an order of a kind referred to in that subsection is maintainable otherwise than at the public expense.".'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 43 and 52.

Mr. McLoughlin: The new clause arises from the constructive discussions that we have held with the Rights of Way Review Committee on the provisions in the Bill relating to footpaths and from promises given in Committee. It amends section 36 of the Highways Act 1980 so that new paths or ways created as a consequence of rail crossing diversion orders or harbour orders or works orders made under clauses 1 or 3 of the Bill will be maintained at public expense, except where that is not appropriate—for example, that part of a new right of way which crosses a railway, where responsibility for maintenance must rest with the operator. The new clause, combined with amendment No. 43, offers the necessary flexibility to ensure that appropriate and comprehensive arrangements for maintenance can be made by the Secretary of State in confirming a rail crossing diversion order or in making a harbour or transport works order. Amendment No. 52 is a consequential small repeal, of section 36(2) of the Highways Act. I commend the new clause, and the amendments, as I have said, achieve what the Rights of Way Review Committee wants.

Mr. Peter Snape: Hon. Members who served on the Committee, as well as all other hon. Members, will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that explanation. It clarifies the position relating to section 36 of the Highways Act to which the Under-Secretary referred. It goes a long way —indeed, I believe that it goes the entire way; let me be placatory at this early stage—towards meeting the assurance that the Under-Secretary gave in Committee, for which we are grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS OVER RAILWAYS

'.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway crosses a railway or tramway otherwise than by a tunnel or bridge,
(b) the operator of the railway or tramway has made a closure or diversion application in respect of the crossing, and

(c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State the crossing constitutes a danger to members of the public using it or likely to use it.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order require the operator to provide a tunnel or a bridge, or to improve an existing tunnel or bridge, to carry the path or way over or under the railway or tramway at or reasonably near to the crossing to which the closure or diversion application relates.
(3) An order under this section may include particulars as to the tunnel or bridge which is to be provided or as to the improvements which are to be made.
(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the closure or diversion application is made, and not less than two months before making an order he shall give written notice of his proposal to make the order to the operator and to each local authority in whose area the crossing (or any proposed new crossing) is situated.
(5) A notice given under subsection (4) above must be accompanied by a draft of the proposed order under this section; and any order eventually made may include modifications of the draft.
(6) An operator shall not be regarded as in breach of a duty imposed by an order under this section if he has used his best endeavours to comply with the order.
(7) Where an operator is required by an order under this section to provide or improve a bridge or tunnel, but is unable to do so because he does not have the powers or rights (including rights over land) needed for the purpose, he shall not be taken to have used his best endeavours to comply with the order unless he has used his best endeavours to obtain those powers or rights (whether by means of an order under section I above or otherwise).
(8) In this section—


"bridleway" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;
"closure or diversion application" means—


(a) an application made under section 6 above, or
(b) a request made in accordance with section 120(3A)(aa) of the highways Act 1980,

for an order by virtue of which a public right of way would be extinguished or diverted;

footpath" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;
local authority" means a county council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London, a parish or community council and a parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council;
operator", in relation to a railway or tramway, means any person carrying on an undertaking which includes maintaining the permanent way.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clause 6— Amendment of Level Crossings Act 1983.
Government new clause 7—Orders under Transport Act 1968.
Government amendments Nos. 96 and 97.

Mr. McLoughlin: New clause 8 meets an undertaking given in Committee to introduce a power for the Secretary of State to compel a railway or tramway operator to provide a bridge or tunnel as a replacement for a footpath or bridleway level crossing. This might be constructed either on the site of the crossing or at another reasonably convenient location to which the path or way could be


diverted. In some cases, it may be cheaper or more appropriate to improve a nearby bridge or tunnel to take a diverted right of way, and an order may require this instead. We have consulted on this proposal and it has been widely welcomed.
The intention is that the railway or tramway operator will identify potentially dangerous crossings in the first instance, using as criteria the guidance recently issued by the railway inspectorate, on which comments are being sought. It is right that this responsibility should remain with the operator. BR is currently surveying all its footpath crossings, beginning with those on high-speed lines.
Where a crossing is identified as unsafe and, following consultation with the council and other parties, it appears that a stopping-up or a simple diversion to another crossing point is not appropriate, the Secretary of State may step in and propose a bridge or tunnel order. Where all the interested parties agree that a bridge or tunnel is necessary, the Secretary of State will be able to give notice of a bridge or tunnel order at the same time as the operator applies for a diversion or extinguishment order. If a works order under part I is required, that could be dealt with concurrently.
An inquiry may be necessary to decide whether it is reasonably practicable to retain a crossing and to make it safe for use by the public. In such cases it would be premature to publish a draft bridge order as that would prejudice the outcome of the operator's application. If the inquiry inspector recommended that a crossing was unsafe and could not be made safe, but should not be closed, a structure would be needed and the Secretary of State would consider making an order. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport will make all the administrative arrangements to ensure that each is aware of the diversion and extinguishment applications.
That meets a commitment given in Committee, which was widely accepted.

Mr. Snape: One question that arises directly from the Minister's speech is, who pays? The Minister said that the responsibility would lie with the railway or tramway operator once they have identified a level crossing or footpath that is considered to be unsafe. I said on behalf of the Opposition during a similar debate in Committee that we would be unwilling to see a greater financial burden placed upon British Rail, perhaps at the expense of railway services.
In Committee we used the example of a level crossing in Doncaster where tragic fatalities occurred comparatively recently. Can the Minister turn his mind to the future of that crossing? Does he feel that that crossing would be covered by the provisions of the new clause? That crossing goes over no fewer than four or five running tracks and a goods loop or a siding. Obviously, any alternative, whether a bridge or a tunnel, would be expensive. In those circumstances, it is all very well to say that the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment would give the authority, but who would sign the cheques?

Mr. Robert Adley: I should like to follow the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). It would be churlish not. to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy and

help on the points that I have raised directly with him. I spoke on Second Reading, but I did not serve on the Committee.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposition that a level crossing is a cost to be borne by the railways and that it should be part of their expenses and shown in their accounts is another example, of which dozens could be listed if it were in order to do so, that will show that it is always the railways that are expected to bear the cost when road meets rail. Road transport has all its track costs borne by the taxpayer. It is the same for the British Transport police. A total of £40 million is shown for them on the railways books, but all the costs of road policing are borne by the taxpayer.
Does my hon. Friend agree that if, at some future date, we are to have a discussion about railway policy, the question of who pays when there are historic hangovers such as level crossings needs to be tackled? I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would agree that it could be done on a bipartisan basis. Perhaps my hon. Friend will recognise that this is an ongoing problem. Level crossings are just one example of a wider problem.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The Minister will recollect that, in Committee, although we welcomed a clause such as this, I raised the question of the disabled. In the past, when bridges have been constructed, the disabled have not been considered. Whose responsibility will that be now? Does it rest with the local authority and local planning committee, with British Rail or with the construction company operating the crossing? We know that there are various crossings in Britain to which the disabled do not have access and where they have to travel many miles before they can cross. Whose responsibility will that be?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the new clause and the amendments. I am pleased that the Minister has met the points that we raised. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I should like to know who will pay and, more importantly, how many orders there will be. There is no point putting the provision in the Bill if, in practical terms, there will not be any.
As I understand it, British Rail identified in its legislation on east coast main line safety that 11 crossings were causing concern. I understand that negotiations on two of the crossings are at an advanced stage. That leaves nine crossings. Can the Minister tell us whether any of those nine will be the subject of a tunnel or a bridge, particularly the one at South Mimms, which is on the London way and is probably the most controversial? Has British Rail now agreed to drop the east coast safety measures in view of the fact that they will effectively be overtaken by this legislation?
We know that some of the regulations under the Bill will not come into force for some time, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that the level crossing provisions and the safety measures related to them will come into force quickly and that it will be possible for British Rail to start constructing bridges or tunnels, where it is deemed necessary, at an early stage.

Mr. McLoughlin: I hope that I can go some way to helping my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr.


Adley). I am grateful for his thanks for meeting him and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) during the passage of the Bill.
Where a bridge or tunnel order has been made, the Department will pay a grant to British Rail in England and Wales under EC regulation 1192/69. The regulation prescribes that the grant shall be equal to the proportion of the cost borne by the railway operator, less any additional costs for modification made at the request of British Rail and the value of any benefit that British Rail derives from work carried out. That means that the grant proportion is likely to be higher than the 50 per cent. grant payable for level crossings. Because of that, we estimate that the annual grant expenditure, assuming 10 orders for foot bridges, would be nearly £2 million rather than the initial figure of about £ million that I mentioned in Committee.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the east coast main line legislation that is presently before the House. It is for British Rail to decide how it wishes to proceed with that legislation. It will want to take into account what happens with this Bill if it reaches the statute book.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also asked about crossings, particularly the one at South Mimms. I would rather not try to answer him today, but I shall write to him and suggest what I think will be the outcome of any discussions on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

AMENDMENT OF LEVEL CROSSINGS ACT 1983

'.—In section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (safety arrangements at level crossings) in subsection (II), for the definition of "operator" there shall be substituted—
 'operator' ", in relation to a crossing, means any person carrying on an undertaking which includes maintaining the permanent way;".'.—]Mr. McLoughlin.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

ORDERS UNDER TRANSPORT ACT 1968

'.—Section 124 of the Transport Act 1968 (which gives the Secretary of State power to impose obligations in respect of level crossings), in its application in England and Wales, shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

EXCLUSION OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE LEGISLATION

'.—(1) In section 4 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (interpretation) in the definition of "hackney carriage", for the words "not a stage carriage" there shall be substituted the words "neither a stage carriage nor a tramcar".
(2) In section 4 of the London Cab Act 1968 (display of signs etc) in subsection (5) in the definition of "private hire-car", after the words "public service vehicle" there shall be inserted the words "or tramcar".

(3) In section 80 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (interpretation) in subsection (1) in the definition of "private hire vehicle", after the words "London cab" there shall be inserted the words "or tramcar".'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 88 to 92.

Mr. McLoughlin: The proposed new clause and amendments deal with a topic that has not so far been considered in connection with the Bill—hackney carriage legislation. The Joint Committee, in its report on private Bill procedure, said that tramway legislation needed considerable updating and revision to meet modern requirements. Elsewhere in the Bill we have been able to do that in relation to safety. Here, we are proposing to deal with the regulatory aspects. The Tramways Act 1870 introduced a system for regulating the conduct of drivers and passengers and for the licensing and operational conditions of vehicles by applying existing hackney carriage legislation that dated from 1847. That legislation covered horse-drawn vehicles and it might well have been sensible to bring tramways under the same controls when trams were horse drawn. However, that seems wholly inappropriate in the context of modern tramcar and light railway vehicles.
It could also lead to some bizarre circumstances. As the letter of the law stands at present, a constable who was convinced that a tram driver was behaving erratically could take over the tram and its horses and drive them to the nearest livery stables. The law would also impose on the driver of the tram in, say, Croydon, if that scheme succeeds, the need to pass the taxi drivers' knowledge examination. I do not think that that would be sensible.
The new clause will put trams in much the same position as buses, which is why clause 58 applies to trams some of the provisions of the bus legislation contained in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. In the matter of safety, trams will remain under the supervision of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate.
I commend the new clause to the House. With other provisions in the Bill, it will help to update the legislation governing the tramcar.

Mr. Snape: Clearly, this is the last time for a while that we shall approach the legislation in such harmony. We note what the Minister says and, again, it appears to make a great deal of sense.
It is probably out of order for me to ask this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall do so anyway—it is, of course, fatal to draw Mr. Deputy Speaker's attention to such a breach of conduct. It seems that many aspects of the London Cab Act 1968 and previous taxi carriage legislation need to be updated, including not only the definition of tramcars but, for example, the six-mile limit from the Palace of Westminster which appears to be based on the days when cabs were pulled by horses. There certainly appears to be no justification for that legislation to remain in the latter part of the 20th century.
We welcome the attempt to tidy up the legislation. We hope that, in the last few weeks remaining to the Minister in his present post, he will reconsider some of the other and, in our view, greater anomalies of the legislation.

Mr. Fearn: The Minister will recollect that many of us spoke about tramcars when the Bill was in Committee, and many of us mentioned Blackpool. Having spoken to tramcar persons—especially the drivers and conductors in Blackpool—we know that they are worried about any legislation that will alter what they are doing. Will the Minister reassure them that there will be no alteration to the way in which they operate at present?

Mr. McLoughlin: I knew that the Tramways Act 1846, with which we are all conversant, would lead to some debate.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke about what might happen in the next few weeks. He obviously knows something that we do not. I look forward to many more months of further exchanges at the Dispatch Boxes with us both in our respective positions. The hon. Gentleman asked a valid question about hackney carriages and the old legislation. He will know that a working party is currently considering hackney carriages and public minicab regulations in London. I hope that we can reach a common agreement when the report is published.
I assure the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that there is no intention to change the way in which Blackpool tram drivers, whom we see at least every other year—if not more often—operate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

PROCEDURE WHERE SECRETARY OF STATE OVERRULE'S RESULT OF INQUIRY

'. Where, following a public local inquiry pursuant to section I I above, the Secretary of State makes an order modifying or overruling the recommendation of the person appointed by him to hear objections, such an order shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]
Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following amendments: No. 101, in clause 1, page I, line 17, at end insert
'provided that no such order may be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.
No. 102, in page 1, line 17. at end insert
'which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
No. 103, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert
'which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
No. 110, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, at end insert
'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.

Mr. Bennett: The new clause deals with one of the essential principles of the way in which we are changing the private Bill procedure and—I hope—getting rid of many such Bills from the House of Commons.
I think that most hon. Members would be very happy if we could pass responsibility for enacting legislation which is currently introduced in private Bills to local communities and local people. However, we would not be

very happy if Parliament were to give up its powers, duties and rights to the Secretary of State. "[hat is the issue covered in the new clause and some of the associated amendments.
I understand perfectly that it is far better to hold a local public inquiry at which local people can put their case to the inspector than having people come to London—perhaps from the north of England—to put their views to a Committee of four hon. Members. One of those hon. Members has a casting vote and is there, so to speak, in a double capacity. Often, hon. Members are not especially interested in the issue—in fact, they must be disinterested parties, because they have a semi-judicial role. They may have to sit for many hours being told about local circumstances. Although they can visit the area involved, they do not have a great deal of knowledge. That is a very unsatisfactory procedure and it is far better—as the legislation provides—for people to be able to express their views to a local inspector.
If the local inspector hears their views, reaches a balanced judgment and makes recommendations to the Secretary of State who implements them, that seems eminently more sensible than the present private Bill procedure. Of course, if the scheme is of national significance, it is reasonable that Parliament should judge whether the principle should be accepted and the detail considered by an inquiry.
There might occasionally be arguments about whether a scheme is of national or local significance, but an amendment that was tabled to deal with that issue was not selected, although the Minister could not resolve the problem in Committee. He said merely that it was always easy to tell whether a scheme was of national or local significance, but when we tested him on one or two schemes, he could not answer.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that, following his logic, it would in the end be for the House to have the powers to decide on a matter of doubt whether an issue was of national or local significance?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, I certainly tried to argue that in Committee and I tabled an amendment to that effect, but it was not selected.
I still believe that there is a problem—I hope that someone in another place will return to this issue—in deciding what is of national or local significance. Assuming that it is approved by Parliament, because it is of national significance, or it is referred directly to an inquiry by the Secretary of State, because it is of local significance, I envisage no problems, as long as the inspector makes a recommendation which is then made law by the Secretary of State. I envisage that problems will occur if the Secretary of State decides to take a different decision from that recommended to him by the inspector or if he decides to modify the recommendations substantially. At that point, Parliament should have the right to exercise a final judgment in the matter if there is a disagreement between the inspector and the Secretary of State.
We all know that, in most such cases, political pressure of one sort or another will have entered the equation. I have no doubt that, when the Minister replies, he will hold up his hands in horror and say that, when he gets the


inspector's report, he does not let anyone else influence him. He will say that he merely reads what the inspector has said and arrives at a conclusion.

Mr. Spearing: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bennett: However, as my hon. Friend indicates, we all know that that does not happen. Of course, the Minister or the Secretary of State dealing with such an issue takes political considerations into account. There is nothing wrong with that in a democracy—in fact, we should be proud of the fact that Ministers respond to political arguments.
There is no problem with that, but if a Minister responds to a political problem, in the end it should be up to Parliament to decide whether that Minister has responded correctly or incorrectly to the political arguments and whether he should have followed the inspector's directions or suggestions. The amendment simply says that, in the relatively rare circumstance of the Minister's disagreeing with the inspector, the final decision should come back to Parliament. It would not introduce a complicated procedure—we have aimed for almost the minimum amount of parliamentary accountability—but in those circumstances Parliament should retain the last word. We should not hand over to the Secretary of State the power to make political judgments.
I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister will be able to find a way of accommodating the views expressed in Committee, and those being expressed on Report, on this important issue.

5 pm

Mr. Spearing: I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Clearly, if a Minister of the Crown reversed an inspector's public recommendation—although the recommendation would not be public until the Minister changed it—it would be right and proper for the House to have the final say. If that were written into the Bill, the Minister would, of course, bear in mind when considering his view the fact that the House would have the final say.
That is an important principle—it is what I call the "hidden gate", which Parliament provides on many issues. Those issues may not necessarily be debated, but Parliament's power is in the minds of Ministers and officials. If any part of that gate were taken away, the actions and decisions of Ministers and officials in Whitehall would be different.
I agree with my hon. Friend's new clause and will support it, but I do not believe that the restrictions and qualifications in it go anything like far enough. To the casual listener, the debate so far will have seemed to concern details about tramcars, railway crossings and bridleways. However, there is no doubt that clauses 1, 2 and 3 transfer enormous powers from Members of the House of Commons and therefore from those who sent us here to officials and Ministers in Whitehall. Nobody has denied that.
I am worried that in doing so we have left too few backstop measures at the end of the process—too few opportunities for the House to say no. The powers being transferred from the House to Whitehall represent almost the whole range of private Bills that have come to the

House over the centuries. Transport Bills have included Bills in respect of canals—historically canals were the first —railways, harbours and, now, barrages in our estuaries. All works Bills relating to such matters are to be transferred to a completely new procedure. The powers exercised by an Opposed Private Bill Committee of the House are to be transferred to Whitehall.
Moreover, Ministers will exercise those powers, not by introducing a Bill in the House—a public Bill, as distinct from a privately promoted Bill—but by a single statutory instrument. Clause 1(2) says:
The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
It may not be known to hon. Members, still less to members of the public who may be listening to the debate, or even seeing it, via some electronic means—I did not know it myself until my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised it in Committee—but there are statutory instruments that are not even susceptible to a negative procedure. As well as the range of statutory instruments that become effective only after a draft has been laid or a motion approving them has been passed by the House, there is another range of statutory instruments for whose annulment it is not possible to put down a motion in the House.
One might suppose that even those who support the principle of shifting all the private Bills about which we are talking away from the House would want there at least to be an affirmative instrument to approve the Minister's decision, which may be contained in a 300-page wodge of paper. But there is not an affirmative instrument in the Bill —the instruments will not even be subject to annulment. In other words, unless the matter is of national significance, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, the House will have no say. The matter will be in the hands of Whitehall and the Minister. Unless we agree to the amendment that would change all that to an affirmative procedure, allowing a maximum of an hour and a half's debate in the Chamber—for the House to say yes to what the Minister and the inspector have decided as a result of the public inquiry—there will be no control whatever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has tabled another amendment, which would make the process subject to annulment. I hope that he will speak to that amendment later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it would at least provide some safeguards, although I do not regard those as being as good as an affirmative resolution.
We have here a statutory instrument in camouflage. When people think of statutory instruments and regulations, they think of relatively small matters of detail, such as the design of buses and other vehicles, regulations on tramcar drivers or other abstruse administrative details. But under the Bill there would be a new breed of statutory instrument which would replace the scope of a Bill authorising a railway of pretty well any length. A future subject of such a single statutory instrument could be a railway line from King's Cross halfway to the coast —the document could be 300 pages long.
Such a statutory instrument could affect my borough of Newham, where the Ove Arup plans show a tunnel under the town, and various other buildings. That provides a convenient example, because, although there would be a public inquiry, the House would not be able to make a final decision on the balance of the public advantage that


a railway would undoubtedly bring against the private disadvantage of the compulsory purchase orders that such a statutory instrument would entail.
This is a matter not only of compulsory purchase, although that is important, but of giving powers. Properly and understandably, private Bills have hitherto given their promoters powers to make byelaws and regulations on the operation of, for example, a railway system. Under the Bill, those powers could affect a system of new elevated magnetic track, such as we hear could well be introduced.
I have already mentioned coastal barrages. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish talked about the difference between local and national significance. A barrage across the Mersey has already been mentioned. Would that be a local or a national matter? A Severn barrage has been talked about for more than a century. Would that be a purely local matter for the west country and south Wales, or would it be a national matter? Certainly, if it affected electricity generation, it would be a national matter, but under the Bill the Minister would decide whether it was national or local. If the Minister or his successor decided that one of those projects—or a project in Scotland, such as a barrage across the Solway Firth—was not of national significance, the House would have no part to play.
Now we have some idea of the scope of the orders. As schedule 1 affects clauses 1 and 3, and the orders, I hope that it is in order to refer to it. It lays down in fair detail the matters that the statutory instruments can include. They may be surprising to some people outside in their scope and significance.
Schedule 1, which contains 18 paragraphs, is headed:
Matters within sections 1 and 3",
and covers the matters that can be dealt with by statutory instrument. The paragraphs include:
"2. The carrying out of any other civil engineering or other works.
3. The acquisition of land …
4. The creation and extinguishment of rights over land ….
5. The abrogation and modification of agreements relating to land.
6. The conferring on persons providing transport services of rights to use systems".
I hasten on to paragraph 9, which says:
The making of agreements to secure the provision of police services.
That means the creation of a police force. We are all familiar with the British Transport police and there are private police forces. One will be set up at the port of Tilbury; that is a very controversial proposal. The Bill could create a Severn barrage police force, a canal police force, or a channel tunnel railway police force which would have nothing to do with the Kent constabulary or the Essex constabulary. The provision is as bland as that.
The worst and most extraordinary of all is paragraph 18, which refers to:
The alteration of the powers of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament.
By virtue of a small paragraph which cannot be got at by the House, unless new clause I is accepted, any Act of Parliament relating to the powers of any body can be changed.
I think that when I came to this place, such a proposal by any Minister of any Government, whether right, left or centre, would have been thought impossible by any hon. Member. Here we have powers, not only in clauses I and 3, but in other clauses, to change Acts of Parliament by relatively obscure Orders in Council which cannot be

prayed against by the House. A Minister can unilaterally, without any proceedings in the House, change any Act of Parliament within the defintion that I have just read. I challenge the Minister to tell me now that my interpretation of the Bill is wrong. We have been round the course already in Committee and, very unfortunately, the answer is that I am correct.
Time and again, members of the public, members of the press and Members of Parliament say that Whitehall and Ministers have too much power. We must claw back the power to the House of Commons. The Bill claws back nothing; it gives it all away—and on a quiet Thursday afternoon. I am not a betting man, but I bet that most hon. Members do not know that the Bill is giving away the rights of their constituents.
On the Solway Firth, anywhere in Scotland or anywhere where there is a coastal barrage, a railway, a tramway—I am glad to say that there will be many more railways and tramways, of which many of us are in favour —someone may go to an advice service. He may ask a Member of Parliament what he can do about a particular proposal. Unless the proposal has been designated as of national significance, the Member of Parliament can only say, "I will write to the Minister, I will see him with a delegation, I will see him in the Lobby or I will catch him when he comes to a garden fete, but I cannot do anything in Parliament."

Mr. McLoughlin: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's wider point about the police later, because to deal with it now would take longer than an intervention allows.
The hon. Gentleman must be a little more generous about the idea that we are giving away powers. Under the Bill, we seek to remove the locus standi and we shall give many more people the right to be able to appear at public inquiries, which are usually held in their locality. That has been the subject of exhaustive debates in the House on many occasions. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not like what we are doing, but I believe that it is a greater democratisation rather than a removal of democracy.

Mr. Spearing: I am extremely glad that the Minister has intervened in that way. He was very obliging in Committee, and he has been the soul of courtesy. However, he has forgotten one fundamental point. I agree, of course, that it is far better for some inquiries to be conducted locally. I am the first to understand that a bewigged and terrifying procedure in a Committee Room is far less satisfactory for some constituents than a local inquiry such as we have for planning.
However, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which made this recommendation, might have looked a little further into the matter. It was perfectly possible to ensure that one of the rules for private legislation was that planning permission and local inquiries—with which we all agree—were carried out and came to a conclusion before the private Bills were laid. That would get rid of all the problems, make the private Bill procedure swifter and save hon. Members' time.
Parliament would be used as a court of appeal, which it should be, rather than as a court of first instance, which it has become with many private Bills. If it had not been for the abuse of the private Bill procedure by some people, whom the Minister knows, and even by the Government,


we should not be here today. It is perfectly possible to combine local hearings and local democracy with the central powers of a central democracy of this kingdom.
I have made a long contribution, but I believe that the seriousness of the matter deserves such comment. The powers under schedule 1 are very great. I did not read out paragraph 1, which refers to:
The construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, demolition and removal of railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other transport systems within section 1(1) of this Act, waterways, roads, watercourses, buildings and other structures.
Barrages are included because they affect navigation, which is included under clause 3.
As some colleagues know, because we debated the matter in Committee, that is not the extent of the Minister's powers. A lawyer or someone conversant with legislation might look at schedule 1 and say, "The Minister's proposal is not contained here. He cannot do it under the order." Having made some inquiries, I am sorry to tell the House that the Minister's powers under the orders are even wider than the powers under schedule 1.
Under clause 1, the Secretary of State
may make an order relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the construction or operation of a transport system of any of the following kinds".
The magic words—perhaps I should say ominous words —are "matters ancillary to" and "relating to". Let us suppose that a private person said, "The matter is not in schedule 1, it does not concern a police force, it is not this or that. The Minister cannot do it." Let us suppose that the matter went to court. The court might find that, although the matter was not covered by schedule 1, it was definitely "relating to" or "ancillary to" and the Minister would get away with it. The scope of the orders is almost beyond imagination and is certainly beyond belief.
Many people both inside and outside the House have said that the powers of the Executive have grown, are still growing and need to be diminished. Unless my amendment, which makes it necessary to have an affirmative vote in the House, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Redditch (Mr. Bennett) is passed, the power of the Executive will wax much greater. Many people will rue the day when the House loses the power of the people who sent us here to officials, Ministers and those in Whitehall who support them.

Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested that this measure will slip through on a quiet Thursday afternoon. There was never any prospect of it being a quiet Thursday afternoon, with the hon. Gentleman and others contributing to the debate. From beginning to end, the procedures on the Bill have been full of surprises. In Committee, what appeared to be relatively modest proposals on the amendment paper, time and again became issues of great principle. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that again this afternoon.
I thought that this was a relatively minor proposal. Very quickly, we returned to the fundamental principles of the Bill. The new clause is described as a simple procedure whereby the Secretary of State overrules the result of an inquiry—a relatively modest suggestion, and not impossible to concede. The hon. Gentleman soon talked about extending police powers and the privatisation of

police forces, and perhaps applying them to the high-speed link to the channel tunnel, Severn barrage, and so on. On this relatively small point, the hon. Gentleman built an enormous argument of principle.
I have much respect and admiration for the hon. Gentleman, as do most hon. Members, but the truth is that he does not like the Bill at all. He is totally against the transfer of planning controls from Parliament to the planning system. It is a surprise that he did not vote against Second Reading, because he is totally against the measure. He wants to hang on as long as he possibly can to control over railway planning. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should continue to plan railways through the archaic private Bill procedure, he should apply the same logic to highways and to the myriad of major planning matters that are dealt with through the planning procedure.
If the hon. Member for Newham, South wants to control the details of a railway, he must consider why we should not bring back to Parliament control over highway matters. He might thoroughly enjoy that. He would probably claw back great powers from the Executive, but I am not sure whether that would help our constituents. It certainly would not streamline the planning procedures or get things done, but it would certainly bog down Parliament in a vast quantity of detail and not be efficient. With this proposal, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are clinging on by their fingertips to a little residual control over railway matters. Although I can understand that, it misses the point.

Mr. Spearing: Let me make our position absolutely clear. I would not want to claw back more powers over motorways, for example, although there were turnpike Acts many years ago. However, I want an hour and a half for debate on matters of local significance that may be very important. That is not time consuming—the rest may be done outside the House. Why not have an hour and a half?

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. It is just as logical to apply that argument to roads. Exactly the same argument applies. If he wants to bring that matter back to Parliament, he should argue that case. He again suggested the dual procedure—a public inquiry system outside the House, with Parliament retaining a system of control thereafter, with much of the work having been done. That point was considered by the Select Committee. Nearly everybody who has been concerned with those matters is totally against having two bites at the cherry. A public inquiry system—analysis outside this place—would be very unsatisfactory if it were known that it would thereafter go to Parliament and all the work would be thrown away because our unsatisfactory system could simply reject it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: New clause 1 does not mention that. It says that, if the inquiry reaches one decision and the Secretary of State comes up with a different decision, the House should be the arbitrator.

Mr. Moate: I understand what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish says, but the hon. Member for Newham, South was not saying that—he was going a little further. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Newham, South. He is desperately trying to cling on to a Parliamentary procedure when, fundamentally, the


Select Committee and Parliament–1 hope that it will continue—have endorsed the principle of moving such planning matters out into the planning system.
The hon. Gentleman is right—of course that means that Parliament is giving up that control, but it is doing so deliberately, because it knows that it is almost an accident of history that we have retained control over such matters. There are efficient systems which we still ultimately have to control matters and for which we ultimately have political responsibility, but they are outside the House and it makes sense to apply the same rules to railways and ports.
Of course it is a litle irritating when a Minister overrules the decisions of an inspector, but surely the same logic applies to a range of other public inquiries. If Parliament said, "Because, for historical reasons, we have had all those controls, we wish to retain residual control just over railways," why should we not have the same power over highways and all other planning matters? Whenever the Secretary of State overrules a local inspector, he will be saying that an order should be brought to the House and subject to the same negative procedure.
We must accept the argument in principle of passing those matters into the planning system. Therefore, I do not feel that the case for the new clause has been made out.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I refer to amendments Nos. 102 and 103. Of course we are not talking about an entirely unqualified procedure. Under clauses 1 and 3, which relate to the
construction … of a transport system … or to matters ancillary to … the construction or use of an inland waterway",
the Secretary of State is given power to produce statutory instruments which are not subject to any procedure. My amendment simply requires that they should be subject to annulment. That is to say, if a prayer is tabled and the opportunity is provided, there should be a debate of one and a half hours—inadequate but better than nothing. For the information of the House, in 1991, of 114 prayers that wer tabled, 25 were debated, it is not as though we are talking about an overwhelming number of prayers being debated on the Floor of the House.
Clauses 1 and 3 provide the Secretary of State with power to make instruments, but only on application under rules provided under the negative procedure in clause 6. In Committee, we improved the Bill by making the negative procedure—that is, instruments subject to annulment—a requirement for the production of the rules. There is some element of public accountability, but, once the rules have been laid down, the Secretary of State can consider an application. Under clause 11, he may cause a public local inquiry to be held for the purposes of an application made under clause 6 under the rules made by a statutory instrument. However, it is not an absolute requirement that the Secretary of State holds a public local inquiry, because he may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to hear an objection and then report to him.
5.30 pm
Of course, if the Secretary of State thinks that an application is frivolous or trivial, he can turn it down on those grounds. So he can turn it down on three different grounds. However, if a local authority applies, he must hold a local public inquiry. So there is a procedure. All that we ask in the new clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) says, is that

Parliament should have reserve powers to examine an order if the Secretary of State differs from the decision or recommendation to hold a public inquiry.
What is the Minister's worry? If he makes an order after an application under clause 6, whether or not it is considered by a local public inquiry under clause 11, why should he not make an order with a negative procedure attached to it so that Members of Parliament have the opportunity to request a debate if they want one? There might be special local circumstances. There might be a difference of view between the local public inquiry and the Secretary of State. That would be one argument for having a debate. Another would be that a section of the local community was dissatisfied with some procedure of the inquiry. Local people might feel that their case had been denied a proper hearing. That might lead a Member of Parliament to table a prayer and seek a debate.
However, in our experience the likelihood is that a debate will not be sought. The likelihood is that one of the negative procedures will be used and the order will go through the House without objection. That would happen in the majority of cases. We simply want a reserve power to enable people outside the House to invoke the support of their Member of Parliament for a debate if they feel dissatisfied in some way.
Anxiety about a proposal might give rise to reluctance to allow the powers in the Bill to be used in such a way that they go unchallenged. The powers are pretty wide. Clause 5 states that an order under section 1 or 3 may
apply, modify or exclude any provision of an Act of Parliament (or of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament) which relates to any matter as to which an order could be made under section I or, as the case may be, 3, and
(b) make such amendments, repeals and revocations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary".
Those wide powers are known as a Henry VIII clause. In effect we are giving power to the Minister to repeal or modify primary legislation made by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is an important power.
I am pleased that we are having this debate because over the years Parliament has given a power such as we are discussing to lots of Ministers lots of times. It has slid through the House with the greatest of ease. People are now examining such powers a little more closely. It is fair and proper that we should do so. As the powers are wide and involve criminal sanctions—penalties could be imposed on people under them—we should have a reserve power to have a look at things.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments recently took evidence on an instrument presented to it. The evidence was not a bright, shining example of evidence submitted by a Department with clarity of thought. Indeed, the Department had clearly got things wrong in its memorandum. It apologised for that. After the evidence was given, we obtained from our counsel some comments about which Department was responsible for the most confusing and misleading instruments. I must tell the Minister that high on the list was the Department of Transport.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It was the winner.

Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend says, it was the winner. So we would be giving powers to issue orders to the Minister and his Department when the Department has not the best record for clarity of expression. That is


important, because people have to use these orders. The orders are laws, we should attempt to make them as clear as possible.
I said in the Standing Committee, and it is worth repeating here, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is not simply a policing body. It is an assisting body. If a Department approaches our counsel, who is an efficient and effective counsel, he will give advice if he finds faults in the instrument. An instrument can often be rectified before it is laid in the House. That is a useful service. If a Department does not have to go through any parliamentary procedure of annulment, of course it does not have to bother so much. It is important that the Department should have to bother.
It is not so much that we insist on having a one-and-a-half-hour debate,—but if that is at the back of people's minds, it helps them to concentrate on what is in hand. Under the orders, fines can be imposed, albeit not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. People can be accused of a criminal offence. So it is not a bad idea for the Minister to accede to our request to make them subject to annulment and, therefore, to some examination outside the Department of Transport.
Schedule 1 lists matters within sections 1 and 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to some such matters but I wish to draw the attention of the House to several other points. First, the orders can relate to
The charging of tolls, fares (including penalty fares) and other charges, and the creation of summary offences in connection with non-payment (or in connection with a person's failure to give his name or address in accordance with provisions relating to penalty fares).
So although a limited penalty is laid down in the body of the Bill, orders can cover a wide range of activities. Orders can also apply to sub-delegation. That is giving power to bodies not in Parliament, and other than Parliament, to make laws. Subdelegation comes under paragraph 13 of schedule 1 where it refers to:
The making of byelaws by any person and their enforcement, including the creation of summary offences.
We are not dealing with draconian offences or penalties but none the less they are criminal offences for which people can be taken to a magistrates court. The magistrates would consider the case and pronounce sentence because summary offences had been created.
Whether we should give the Secretary of State powers to make orders is arguable, but it seems even more dubious to give the Secretary of State powers to give a third party powers to create penalties and summary offences. Schedule 1(18) states:
The alteration of the powers of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament.
That impinges on primary legislation. The orders could change a body set up by an Act or the powers of such a body. To that degree the schedule curtails, alters, modifies and, indeed, extends legislation—an alteration could mean that the power of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament was extended.
I accept that, under the powers provided in clauses 1 to 3, an order is subject, before it is made, to a local public inquiry in most circumstances. But in some circumstances it will not be subject to an inquiry. Parliament should have a reserve power to assist the Department in drafting orders that are clear, without ambiguity and intra vires rather

than ultra vires. That would be a help to the Department. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that we wanted to maintain control. He exaggerated the position. We do not seek control. We want to streamline the procedure. I am simply saying that Members' rights should not be eroded.
Perhaps in one in 100 cases—or not even that many —there may be a case of controversy, for example when railways are being considered or inland waters, which are being subject to rules of navigation. However, the areas covered in clauses 1 and 3—with the exception of the section of clause 3 which has been improved by making it subject to negative procedure—are not so likely to be free of controversy that we should exclude the 100th case when hon. Members may wish to raise the matter, on a prayer against an instrument, because they feel that it is wrong, is badly drafted or seeks to obtain powers not contained in the primary legislation that we are discussing. All those were problems mentioned in Committee and are realities.
The Minister has been helpful. In many other areas of the Bill the Minister recognised the strength of the argument that orders should be subject to negative procedure. As the powers contained in clause 1 and 3 are so extensive, they should also be included—in the way in which I have proposed—rather than excluded from further parliamentary procedure. That is not much to ask. It is not a question of holding on to centralised control but of saying that, as a last resort, because of errors, controversy or possible confrontation, Parliament should have the right to a mini-debate.
After all, it is not a bad idea to keep the spectre of a debate on a prayer before the Secretary of State. It ensures that he takes a closer look at the instrument. Instruments have been drafted—as the Minister knows—containing words and phrases that the Minister does not know about. The Minister has signed them. His civil servants did not know, and if he had asked them, they would have told him. The problem was that he did not ask them—and that was subject to negative procedure.
I am not asking much. This is a small request, and I hope that the Minister can meet it.

Mr. Snape: What the debate has lacked in numbers it has more than made up for in its quality. I have listened carefully to the four contributions and anyone who was impartial—none of us is—would have been swayed one way or the other listening to each speech in turn.
I shall consider the amendments in reverse order. The cricketing metaphor has already been used and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) proposes a long-stop piece of legislation. I listened carefully to what he had to say and was fascinated by his view that the amendment would only be used, if it became part of the Bill, in about one in every 100 cases.
I am not sure whether I can go along with that figure. I have known my hon. Friend for many years. A short time after he and I first entered the House he introduced me to some of the more bewildering complexities of orders and praying against them. After a comparatively short time here, he demonstrated a labyrinthine knowledge of some of those procedures.
Knowing my hon. Friend and his diligence, I suspect that, if we accepted his amendment, he would use each and every opportunity to have a debate—I do not blame him for that—although he tells us that that would arise only in one in every 100 cases.
Occasionally such matters can lead to competition between hon. Members—sometimes between hon. Members on the same side of the House. Having set that precedent, with the great knowledge which I know that he possesses, one could envisage that other hon. Members would also use the procedure. Far from being one in 100 cases, it would become accepted custom and practice.
Although I admired the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South pushed his amendment, if we accepted it, the loophole that it would open would soon widen into a window of opportunity and, given the amount of use that it would get, the wall on that side of the building would fall down.

Mr. Cryer: I think that my hon. Friend has attributed to me more of a spirit of inquiry than I justify. In 1991, about 1,750 instruments were laid before the House and a tiny proportion—perhaps 200—were under the affirmative procedure, but there were only 100 prayers from 650 Members of Parliament. I tabled only a handful. Based on that experience, my original claim that about one in 100 would be dealt with through that procedure is right.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend does not care to tell us what percentage of the 100 he tabled. I guess that it was more than one.

Mr. Cryer: That is quite right—it was more than one.

Mr. Snape: If he tabled more than one, it has blown a hole in his argument that it will only be one in 100. He knows full well that all too often such matters generate controversy when other proposed work does not.
I invite the House to look at today's Order Paper, which contains a considerable number of such Bills. Most of them would be covered by the proposals in this legislation and many of them prayed against. I do not single out one and I am sure that the names of those of my hon. Friends which appear on the blocking motions appear there because those hon. Members are concerned about the scheme involved.
Let us take as an example a non-railway Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who represents a large part of my home town of Stockport, has a deep and abiding interest in the Alliance and Leicester (Girobank) Bill, and that is why his name appears on the blocking motion. The fact that our procedures allow so many railway Bills to be blocked at present does not fill me with confidence that the acceptance of some of these amendments would speed up our procedures.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I remind my hon. Friend that, soon after I entered the House in 1974, he told me of the brilliant Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which he served, and suggested that I might like to take his place on it. I have served on it ever since. The ability to question statutory instruments does not mean that they always have to be questioned, just as the ability to table a blocking motion does not mean that legislation always has to be debated. It may well mean that the promoters will want to talk and to give assurances—just as, if one tables a prayer against an order and starts to make a fuss about having a debate on it, Ministers are sometimes prepared to

be helpful to Members to avoid a debate. It is not necessarily a question of having a debate, but prayers allow Members to apply pressure.

Mr. Snape: There was no doubt that I was wise to give up my place on the Statutory Instruments Select Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. It has allowed him to display the remarkable expertise that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South display with great regularity in the House. The fact that I so willingly relinquished my position on that Committee to him explains why he can run rings around me and many other hon. Members when it comes to procedural matters.
While accepting everything that he has just said about the importance of getting Ministers in any Government to reconsider proposals—especially when, in the opinion of the hon. Member concerned, they might adversely affect the interests of his or her constituents—we are talking about finding some method of dealing with certain legislation.
As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moale) rightly pointed out, railway legislation regularly comes before the House only as an accident of history. Uniquely, railway matters—even supposedly less controversial railway matters—have to come before the House. I am told that the purpose of the legislation—or at least the Government said it was—

Mr. Spearing: Ah!

Mr. Snape: I shall reply to my hon. Friend's scepticism in a moment.
I am told that the legislation was intended to put different modes of transport on an equal footing. I know that that philosophy unites all Labour Members. Many of us have long felt that the railway industry has been unduly penalised because of those procedures. Delays have been regularly inflicted upon railway projects because of the time that they take to clear the hurdles of the House.
The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), is not a long-stop amendment, to continue the cricketing parlance. He has moved all the fielders to one place and they are all lining up. If the first seven miss the ball, there are still a few more behind them to stop it. I do not see any purpose to the Bill, if each and every case comes back to the House in the way that my hon. Friend outlined. I am more attracted to new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, whereby, should the Secretary of State overrule the results of an inquiry, an order will be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. Again, although I see the merit in that, it would outweigh some of the advantages gained from transferring legislation on railways from the House to inquiries at a local level.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend passed rapidly over my amendment. However, does he agree that its advantage would be that, instead of debating a controversial Bill for up to six hours on Second Reading and spending four or more weeks in Committee, which would engage many hon. Members in long hours, we could have a debate of an hour and a half only on the Floor of the House? Surely, from my hon. Friend's point of view, that would be a great advantage.

Mr. Snape: No, it would not. The purpose of the Bill is to take many of those matters from the House and to put them where many of us believe they should be discussed —at a local inquiry. My hon. Friend's amendment would bring them all back again.

Mr. Spearing: No, it would not.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend says no, but he knows that it would, because—I say this with utmost respect—he is one of the most artful users of the rules of this House. He is as artful as my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish and for Bradford, South.
The discussion of procedures relating to railway legislation should be transferred to where I believe it properly belongs—inquiries at local level. Therefore, the amendments and the new clause should be resisted.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure whether I should intrude on the private grief of the Opposition.
In Committee, we had many interesting debates on how to go forward most effectively. I wish to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and the Opposition Front-Bench team for their constructive approach. I also extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). This is an important Bill and we are making numerous changes. I hope that the constructive approach that we took in Committee allayed some of the fears of hon. Members.
I cannot recommend the amendments and new clause 1 to the House. New clause I would mean that every order made under clause 1 or clause 3 where the Secretary of State had modified the inquiry inspector's recommendation would have to be laid before Parliament, however small the modification, and even if the modification had been the subject of a further inquiry. That would introduce an added—and I would suggest unwelcome—procedure into the decision-making process for railway and tramway schemes which does not apply to highways projects or to general planning applications. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). It would introduce further delay and uncertainty into a procedure which railway and tramway promoters —and indeed some Labour Members—already regard as potentially very protracted.
Amendment No. 66 was tabled by all the Labour hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It refers to "unreasonable delay", but I shall explain why I think that it would add to that delay.
I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has in mind, in particular, schemes of national significance where, following an inquiry, the inspector recommended major changes which, if accepted, would conflict with the terms of the parliamentary approval. I agree that, as clause 9 is currently drafted, the Secretary of State might be tempted to reject the inspector's recommended changes, but I think that amendment No. 86, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, provides a more satisfactory and practicable solution to that point. However, the new clause would affect all orders—not just those of national significance.
Decisions on transport developments are seldom clear-cut. Judgments have to be made which weigh, on the one hand, the impact of the scheme on people and the environment at the local level and, on the other, the wider

public benefits which the scheme might bring. The inspector, having heard all the evidence at an inquiry, will have a view and will reflect this in his recommendation. In cases where the arguments for and against the development are finely balanced, the inspector might, in his report, recommend that the scheme should proceed subject to certain conditions and modifications. Equally, he might recommend rejection, but in terms which would provide a basis for the Secretary of State to reach a different view if he concluded that more weighting should be given to the wider public good.
Under the proposed new clause, if the Secretary of State decides to turn down the order, perhaps against the recommendation of the inspector, Parliament would be able to do nothing about it. On the other hand, if he makes the order but in so doing rejects, say, certain conditions recommended by the inspector or imposes others, the order would have to be laid before Parliament. Consequently, the effect of the new clause would be to upset the careful balance we have sought to achieve between the interests of promoters and of objectors in favour of the latter.
As I have said, the new clause would introduce further delay—as much as five months in certain circumstances —and uncertainty. If an order were successfully prayed against in either House, it would be lost. The applicant would then have to start the process all over again because the Secretary of State would not be able to modify an order that he had already made. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish might say that this would be unlikely to arise, but I cannot see what purpose the parliamentary scrutiny would serve if it did not provide the opportunity to change the Secretary of State's decision.
I remind the House that the Secretary of State is required under clause 14(2) to give reasons for his decision on an order. The inspector's report would be published when the order is made, so the Secretary of State would be bound to say why he had departed from the inspector's recommendation. Moreover, his decision would be open to challenge in the courts.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South asked whether the level of fines should be extended. He is an expert in such matters and I am sure that he is already aware that hundreds of byelaws that create criminal offences are made by the Government and local authorities which are not subject to parliamentary supervision. I do not believe that we are talking about a great extension of such powers.

Mr. Cryer: Under the provisions of paragraph 12 of schedule 1, some delegation of powers is allowed to virtually any body that is not democratically elected. We are democratically elected—we are soon to be embroiled in an election—and so are local authorities. I understand why local authorities have such delegated powers, and rightly so, but at least there is an element of accountability. That is why I am concerned about paragraph 12.

Mr. McLoughlin: A balance must be struck, and I believe that the orders would have an important effect.
This has been a good debate, but I cannot accept the new clause and the amendments. I ask the House to reject them.

6 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am a little disappointed by what the Minister says. Although he gave us a fair number of concessions in Committee. I hoped that he would have picked one of our amendments to give us a little more parliamentary control.
I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who served on the Committee, does not want us to rush to a vote at this moment, but I want to explain to the Government that we are still not totally happy with the question of parliamentary control. Perhaps in the other place their lordships may feel that they should try to insist on the rights not only of this House but of the House of Lords.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) suggested that a general election is imminent, I hope that the Bill will get through before that happens. I realise that the schedule will be tight if the House of Lords is to come up with amendments, but it is important that it considers the questions of parliamentary scrutiny and where Ministers make different decisions from those of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend said that he was not anxious to press the matter to a vote. I think that we should divide on the new clause, because the Minister would unfortunately not even accept my more moderate suggestion that any instrument should be subject to negative procedure. It is therefore important that my hon. Friend should consider the need for a gesture, in the form of a vote, to show that some of us are unhappy that some parliamentary accountability is not being retained in the clause.

Mr. Bennett: I assure my hon. Friend that I am working in that direction. It is a little ironic that many of our colleagues are at this moment meeting the parliamentary Labour party to consider next week's business, and I suspect that some Conservative Members are in a meeting of the 1922 Committee. It will not be particularly popular with hon. Members in either of those meetings if their proceedings are interrupted by a Division on the Floor of the House. It may be to their convenience, therefore, if I say a few more words on the matter before I press it to a vote. The slight irony of the matter is that, when dealing with private Bills, I must often speak from these Benches at considerable length to delay the procedure.

Mr. McLoughlin: I understand how the hon. Gentleman is trying to facilitate the business of the House. However, may I draw his attention to the fact that, if the Secretary of State were to make different kinds of orders, he would be required under clause 14(2) to give the reasons for his decision. The inspector's report would obviously be published once the order was made and the Secretary of State would be bound to say why he had departed from the inspector's recommendations. His decision would then be challengeable.
As for the idea that we are somehow taking the issue out of the domain of Parliament, the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) do not need me to explain to them how they can bring matters to the attention of the House, hold up business and make their views well known. Moreover, I am sure that they are capable of advising any other hon. Member about that.

Mr. Bennett: The Minister used that argument in Committee. There are all sorts of techniques that hon. Members can use to draw attention to problems. Yesterday, when we heard the Secretary of State for the Environment speaking, one or two of us wondered whether the Mace would be removed.

Mr. Cryer: He was on Ecstasy.

Mr. Bennett: Although perfectly legitimate devices for drawing attention to grievances or problems exist, there are advantages in following rules and regulations that encourage and facilitate debates, rather than having to look for ways of breaking rules and regulations to draw attention to a problem. We are asking the Minister to give us a natural channel of rules and regulations to work through, rather than having to look for extra-parliamentary activities.
I could cry, "I spy strangers," at this point and create a vote. If that is done in the middle of Prime Minister's Question Time, it attracts more publicity to an issue than many hours of debate in a statutory instruments committee. I understand that there are plenty of ways to draw attention to a problem, but let us try to do it properly.
An even more worrying remark that the Minister made was that the Government were taking matters away from Parliament and giving them to local inquiries. A Minister would then have the power to override a local inquiry. He then said that, if that Minister did not do his work properly, the power would be given to the courts. I resent the idea that Parliament—the high court of the land—should hand over decisions to the judiciary. I do not wish to spin out the debate, even for a minute or two, discussing the merits of our judges, but I have more trust in most Tory Ministers than I have in most judges.

Mr. McLoughlin: I know about that concern, because it was raised by the hon. Member for Bradford—

Mr. Cryer: South.

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall get it right by the end of the night.
I agree that that would be the last recourse that any hon. Member would take, but any Minister considering changing the order would bear that in mind. The responsibility would not stop at the Minister, because he would be challengeable elsewhere.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that information. However, to send a marker to the House of Lords, it is important that we divide on one group of amendments, and it would be far simpler to divide on new clause 1. The House of Lords may prefer to return to one of the other amendments, but I hope that it will pursue the Government on that.

Mr. Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the specific point that I tried to address to him? Does he concede that a road inquiry can be just as controversial —probably more so because there are more of them—than a railway inquiry? If the new clause argues that a negative procedure of the House should apply to any situation where a Minister changes or overrules an inspector's decision, why does not the hon. Gentleman apply exactly the same argument to highways, for instance?

Mr. Bennett: I would second that as a proposal if the hon. Gentleman would care to table it as an amendment. Most highway orders are done by statutory instrument so it would be merely a question of making statutory instruments for highway matters subject to negative procedure, where there is a difference between what the inspector recommends and what the Secretary of State intends to do. The occasions when the Secretary of State decides to modify an order are rare and there is a strong reason for insisting that this decision should be accountable to Parliament.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great distinction between the compulsory purchase of highways, buildings or plant and the creation of a transport system, where power as well as property are involved, and where the making of law as distinct from the purchasing of property is a great feature? Moreover, much of the legal infrastructure for policing and control already exists with regard to highways, whereas in any transport system it must be specific.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, I accept that.
I hope that the two meetings to which I referred are now over and that we can divide on the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 173.

Division No. 89]
[6.08 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Leighton, Ron



Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McFall, John


Bellotti, David
Madden, Max


Benton, Joseph
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Carr, Michael
Nellist, Dave


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Rooney, Terence


Corbett, Robin
Salmond, Alex


Cox, Tom
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fearn, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Fisher, Mark
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Fyfe, Maria
Vaz, Keith


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Gordon, Mildred
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Tellers for the Ayes


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Kirkwood, Archy



NOES


Adley, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alexander, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Amos, Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arbuthnot, James
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butler, Chris


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Benyon, W.
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boswell, Tim
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bowis, John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)





Cran, James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mitchell, Sir David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Moate, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Eggar, Tim
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Emery, Sir Peter
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Farr, Sir John
Needham, Richard


Favell, Tony
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholls, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Forman, Nigel
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Sir Marcus
Patnick, Irvine


French, Douglas
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Powell, William (Corby)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Price, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Riddick, Graham


Gorst, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Gregory, Conal
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Ground, Patrick
Rost, Peter


Hague, William
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hannam, Sir John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shelton, Sir William


Hill, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sims, Roger


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Irvine, Michael
Speed, Keith


Jack, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jackson, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


Janman, Tim
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Summerson, Hugo


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thorne, Neil


Knapman, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Tredinnick, David


Knox, David
Trotter, Neville


Lawrence, Ivan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Viggers, Peter


Lightbown, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waller, Gary


Lord, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Wells, Bowen


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilshire, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Mans, Keith
Yeo, Tim


Maples, John



Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mates, Michael
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Meyer, Sir Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

LOCAL ORDER-MAKING POWER

'.—()-(1) This section applies where an application made under section 6 above relates to proposals which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are minor and of only local significance.


(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may determine that an application which is in his opinion minor and of only local significance shall be handled by the local planning authority for the area to which the proposal relates.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make rules as to the way in which a local planning authority shall determine such applications, including—

(a) arrangements for seeking views on the application;
(b) the consideration of objections to the proposals; and
(c) the handling of appeals against a decision of the local planning authority.

(4) The Secretary of State shall publish a guidance note setting out the factors he will take into account in determining whether proposals subject to applications under section 6 above minor and of only local significance.'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause seeks to introduce into the Bill a means by which minor schemes of only local significance can be determined locally. The Bill does not include a local order-making power as floated in the Government's original consultation document. That is of considerable concern to organisations such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities whose members are at the forefront of the revival in interest in light railway schemes. The subject received cursory attention in Committee and I raise it to press the Government to reconsider.
The consultation paper on which the Bill's provisions are based said that the Government saw advantage in a three-tier approach
with some proposals being considered and approved locally, others by Ministers and a small minority being referred to Parliament".
The Bill provides only for a two-tier approach, the local tier having disappeared. On the local tier, the consultation paper stated:
If some proposals of essentially local significance can be authorised by local planning authorities there are likely to be some time savings. In practice many local and minor schemes may have to come to central government for approval, either because they involve compulsory land acquisition…or because the works require scheduled monument consent. It will be for Parliament to decide whether or not to give local authorities powers to confer a defence on grounds of statutory authority to actions for nuisance which will be involved in many of the proposals at present authorised by private bill. Nevertheless the Government would welcome views, particularly from the local authority associations, about what local decision-making may be practicable.
What representations were received from local authority associations and why have they apparently been discarded?
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities strongly supported the local-tier proposal, as did other local authority associations. They argued that it would be especially useful in relation to small modifications to previously approved schemes which frequently arise as a result of detailed design work and implementation following initial scheme approval.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Government had examined the scope for a separate regime for schemes
so local in impact that they should be dealt with by local authorities. On examining the matter further, we have found them to be too few to warrant the legislative apparatus, including possible appeals, which would be required."—[Official Report, 2 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 44.]
We are not able to quantify the demand for that type of procedure, but we are advised that minor modifications to

schemes are not infrequent and that under the proposed arrangements they would be subject to the full blown order-making procedure. It is certain that as further major public transport schemes are proposed and implemented, the number of such minor proposals will increase. In Committee, the Minister said:
Several points were put to us—not least by the Council on Tribunals—as a result of our consultations and we felt that it was best to keep one type of scheme in operation for all the orders"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 January 1992; c. 373.]
The Minister's officials have been a little more forthcoming. In correspondence with the AMA they raised a number of objections to the local tier of decision making. In a letter to the association, the Department stated:
an important feature of all statutory authorised works is that they benefit from a common law defence of statutory authority against actions for nuisance arising from the proper operation of the undertaking. We had doubts about the propriety of delegating to local authorities the power (traditionally in the gift of Parliament of Ministers of the Crown) to confer such a privilege.
When stripped of the jargon so beloved of departmental civil servants, that means that they do not trust anybody but themselves to take decisions. It is important to remember that the consultation paper says that that issue should be decided by Parliament, but it looks as though it has been prejudged by the Under-Secretary and his fellow Ministers.
The Department of Transport also argued in writing to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that it
foresaw problems with defining what constitutes a local scheme.
That is the opposite of what the Minister said in Committee during discussions about similar matters. I shall paraphrase what he said, and I took him to mean that it was easy to define a local from a national scheme. If he did say that, perhaps he could persuade some of his advisers that that is the case, because they appear to think that the opposite is true. The definition of what constitutes a local scheme applies equally to the definition of schemes of national significance for the purposes of clause 9.

Mr. McLoughlin: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing different parts of what was said in Committee. His paraphrase of what I said is almost correct, and I shall not argue about the small details on which he is wrong. I said that schemes of national significance which were subject to the special parliamentary procedures that were laid down would be easily identifiable. I shall later deal with the problems in the new clause.

Mr. Snape: I probably did not paraphrase the Minister in as elegant a way as he delivered the original words. I thought that he said that national schemes were easy to quantify. Perhaps I read too much into what he said. I presumed that, if he could obviously identify nation & schemes, it would be fairly easy to say that the rest were local schemes. I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
The absence from the Bill of a local tier is especially disturbing in the light of what the Minister said about a possible alternative route. Speaking to another clause to which the same principle applies, the Minister said:
Clause 24 gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer certain classes of case to inspectors on the model of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if experience shows that to be the best way of dealing with them."—[Official Report, 2 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 44.]


The phrase "if experience shows" should cause us some concern. There can be no doubt of the existence of this group of minor modifications which require authorisation. For how long will they have to go through those expensive and time-consuming authorisation procedures before the Government introduce a streamlined and preferably locally based alternative route? If the Government cannot see the sense of the new clause, the use of clause 24 would become extremely important, and clarification of the Government's position on that clause is vital.
Also important in the context of the debate is clause 6(4) which allows the Secretary of State to set different rules for applications for different types of scheme. If the Minister continues to resist the case for including in the Bill a local order-making power, will he agree to use the power in clause 6(4) to streamline the process for minor schemes?
The adoption of the provisions in the new clause will not only clarify this part of the Bill but make local order-making power easier and more democratic.

Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) says, in some ways the new clause replicates one which we discussed, albeit briefly, in Committee. If my memory serves me right, "briefly" means that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rose and said, "Why not?" and expected an answer.
I accept that the consultation proposals contained the suggestion that local authorities should be able to decide on applications for orders which were minor and local in nature. I shall explain why we decided to drop that suggestion. We thought that there might be advantages to be gained in terms of time scale by deciding some applications locally. There was some support for the proposal from the local authority associations, but none of their responses identified any obvious or sizeable group of schemes suitable for treatment in this way which we thought would have justified the creation of a separate procedure.
Other responses to the consultation document, such as that from the Council on Tribunals, highlighted serious deficiencies in the proposal, and I fear that the same considerations apply to new clause 3. Our first difficulty was in deciding how to identify which schemes should be treated under a local procedure. Many small schemes might appear, initially, to be of only local significance because of their size. That factor alone would not, however, take into account the possibility that their environmental or economic effects could extend much more widely than the immediate vicinity of the works.
6.30 pm
Some schemes that are definitely minor and local may nevertheless cross local authority boundaries. These would be difficult to handle at local authority level and would probably require us to provide potentially complex procedural arrangements. There would be other handling problems for schemes—of which there could be many—which were promoted by local authorities themselves in their own area. In such cases, there would be understandable concern at the prospect of 'coal authorities applying to themselves for statutory authorisation for

works, and we would certainly have to provide procedures for appeals to the Secretary of State and for the calling in of schemes by him.
Many, if not most, orders under the new procedure will be likely to include proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land. It would be contrary to long-established policy for such matters to be decided other than by Parliament or Ministers of the Crown. There are similar doubts in some quarters about the propriety of allowing local authorities to confer statutory authority for works. Such authority carries with it a defence against actions for nuisance arising from the proper operation of an undertaking, and this will be a factor in most applications for railway and tramway orders.
Finally, we thought that the need to provide a mechanism for appeals to the Secretary of State against decisions by local authorities would remove any potential time benefits of local decision making. That would defeat the main purpose of setting up the procedure in the first place.
I should also take this opportunity to anticipate the amendments that we are proposing—Nos. 32 to 34—to clause 23 which takes a different approach to local schemes from new clause 3. I undertook in Committee to look again at the scope of the power to transfer classes of application to inspectors; our revised proposal is to exclude from the scope of clause 23 those applications which involve compulsory acquisition powers. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that clause 23 offers a more practical way of dealing with local schemes, and will agree to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Snape: Although I understand the Minister's reluctance to commit himself in the way outlined in the new clause, I find some parts of his explanation less than satisfactory. It is all very well to say that it is hard to define the schemes that should be treated as local; I should have thought that an element of common sense was required here. Obviously, if schemes cross local authority boundaries, they cannot be readily defined as local.
Some of the minor matters that are currently dealt with by means of the fairly cumbersome procedures of the House—and, in future, will be dealt with by means of the procedures proposed in the Bill, which appear to be equally cumbersome—really ought to be looked at again. We shall consult our noble Friends in another place about whether we should return to that point.
Surely it would be possible for Ministers to give local authorities delegated powers to deal with statutory agencies. Local authorities frequently act as agents for Her Majesty's Government when it comes to motorway works and repairs. Is there really any difference between that and delegating powers under the Bill?
As I have said, this aspect of the Bill will be considered again in another place, because we feel that more local democracy is necessary. The further down the democratic pipeline some of these decisions are made, the better. Having listened to the Minister' explanation, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

ORDERS AS TO RAILWAYS, TRAMWAYS ETC

Mr. Snape: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(3) In exercising his power under this section the Secretary of State shall have no regard to the exercise of any power he may have to make any grant towards the cost of the construction or operation of the transport system proposed.'.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State not to have regard to any of his grant-making responsibilities when determining an order submitted to him under the provisions of part I. It is designed to secure assurances from Ministers on that important point.
Local authorities with an interest in promoting, for example, light rail schemes broadly support part I, but there is some concern about the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible both for authorising such schemes and for considering whether to grant-aid them. The authorities involved are keen to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the Secretary of State's two roles. Decisions on whether to make an order should relate to the need for the proposal in terms of transport policy, its implications for land use policies and other environmental effects. An order should not be rejected because the Secretary of State is not in a position to provide grant for it or because he fears that it may not meet the grant criteria that he has laid down.
I do not think that it is the role of the Department of Transport to try to second-guess—or, in the case of some schemes, to first-guess or out-guess—the Treasury. After all, as someone far more eminent than I recently said, as the best brains of the nation are collected together in Whitehall in order to say no to every public-sector scheme put to them, the Department of Transport ought to allow them to do just that, rather than saying no on their behalf for reasons other than those outlined in the amendment. Confirmation that the Secretary of State will distinguish between the two functions is, in our view, vital.
Authorities' concerns have been exacerbated by the proposal in the draft applications and objections procedure rules circulated recently by the Department of Transport that an application for an order should be accompanied by
an estimate (with breakdown of items) of the cost of implementing the proposed order".
Confirmation that the information on costs requested with an application will be no greater than that required under the current private Bill procedures would also be helpful.

Mr. McLoughlin: Again, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has made his point well and, in normal circumstances, we agree with the course that he urges on us. That is why, in paragraph 21 of the consultation document "Private Bills and New Procedures", we said:
There will be cases where promoters of orders (eg to authorise light rapid transit systems) will also be applying to the Secretary of State for Transport for a grant towards the costs of their scheme. The Government recognises that the dual functions of deciding whether or not to make the order and whether or not to give grant or to approve investment will need to be kept separate. The Secretary of State will decide the case for statutory authorisation and the case for financial support independently and on their own merits.
I do not believe that there could be a clearer statement of the policy. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it goes further than grant, which his amendment mentions,

although grants under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 will be important in this context. The operator might also need loan sanction of some kind, or credit approval. That, too, ought to be kept apart from the consideration of the planning merits—in its widest sense—of the order. It is one reason why, in clause 20, we remove the need for BR and LRT to obtain consent before depositing an order, as they must for a Bill. That requirement never applied to local authorities or to passenger transport executives.
That does not mean, however, that I support the amendment. It is undesirable and unnecessary. It is undesirable because it could be unfair to those adversely affected and to other objectors. If the Secretary of State receives an application for an order and the promoter has no hope of financing the work for the foreseeable future, should the Secretary of State really have no regard to that, even if he has a power to grant-aid the works? His proper course must surely be to turn the applicant away, so as not to inconvenience grossly those whose property and lives would be affected.
The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is thinking of local authorities, and I am sure that we would all agree that we hope that they would not do such a thing. Would he think the same about private bodies? They, too, are eligible under section 56 for grants. I might add—to forestall the request for an example—that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) put one before us a little while ago.
The amendment is unnecessary because, in making decisions on these orders, the Secretary of State must have regard only to the evidence presented at the inquiry, if there is one, or to the written representations, if there is not. He must not take account of what he might do about grant or loans or any other extraneous matter. If he were to do that, he could be challenged in the courts, either by the applicant or by the objectors. He must have good reasons for his decisions on orders, and they must be made public. So there is ample opportunity to check that decisions have been made for proper reasons.

Mr. Snape: If that is the case, why, in the draft procedure rules recently circulated by the Department, is there provision for
an estimate (with breakdown of items) of the cost of implementing the proposed order"?
The Minister will forgive me for being somewhat suspicious if I feel that price has at least as large a part to play in the Secretary of State's decision-making process as necessity.

Mr. Moate: I have been listening with interest to this exchange. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might also respond to some concern that is felt on this side of the House. I see the difficulty involved in legislating, but my hon. Friend's answer seems to suggest that a Secretary of State could build Chinese walls within himself. On the one hand, he would have to make a quasi-judicial decision; on the other hand, he could be the banker. My hon. Friend has said that there is no problem. Is he saying quite clearly that if, for financial reasons, the evidence of the inquiry were disregarded, the decision could be challenged in court? Is that the point that he is making? If so, the Chinese wall that we like to think might exist will be reinforced.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not using the trick that I understand my noble Friend Lord


Whitelaw used when he was thinking about the answer to a question—the device of coughing and spluttering, and stopping the interview until he got a message. I shall have no trouble in responding in due course. The trouble about the notes that one receives from one's officials is that one cannot read them. Obviously the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East wishes to make a point, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).

Mr. Snape: Perhaps I should intervene again to enable the Minister to look a little more carefully at his official's note. For all I know, it may well say that the amendment is not only eminently sensible but also acceptable. If it does say so, will the Minister put us out of our misery?

Mr. McLoughlin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the note does not say that.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the fact that we circulated the draft rules. He has rightly said that they are draft rules. Obviously representations will be made in respect of some of the points that he has raised, and in the light of them amendments may be made. But cost is an important point, as the hon. Gentleman must recognise. Surely he would not want to encourage a local authority to come forward with a scheme that might cause great inconvenience to local people if the authority had no way of funding that scheme. The blight that might be caused is also a serious concern to local residents. We have all seen how damaging blight, or the possibility of blight, can be.
Let me come now to the matter of the public inquiry. Let us imagine that the objectors question the economic viability of the scheme and successfully demonstrate that there could be no public benefit from construction, that the cost-benefit ratio was so awful that even the hon. Gentleman might not grant-aid it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that money will be free-flowing; nor do I think that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) suggests that money will be free-flowing, whatever the circumstances.
Given the other claims for finance that are likely to be faced, would it be right to amend the Bill so that the Secretary of State would have to have no regard to their evidence, even though the objectors, including environmental groups, had shown that the economic case for the scheme was so weak that grant could never be justified? I think not, as I imagine Opposition Members probably think not, because the environmental damage done by the scheme could not be justified as against the public benefit from it. Apart from that, such a provision would mean that the effect of blight would be extended until the grant application had been rejected and the scheme failed as a consequence.
Let me sum up. First, to achieve what he wants to achieve, the hon. Gentleman should have gone further. Secondly, we have every intention, in normal cases, to keep separate whether a scheme has planning merit and whether it should be grant-aided and, if so, when. Thirdly, if the Secretary of State takes into account improperly the way in which he might use his grant powers when making a decision on an order, he will be subject to judicial review. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is not here, but I should say that I am aware of his point

about the last stop. Obviously the last stop is considered carefully by the Secretary of State when these points are put forward.
This amendment is far too rigid and would lead to inquiries and decision which, for the reasons that I have given, could prejudice many ordinary people and environmental groups. I hope that the Opposition will feel able to withdraw it.

Mr. Snape: I am a little taken aback. First, the Minister tells me how sensible my amendment is; then he berates me for having the temerity to move it in the first place. I must warn him that, after the election, he had better destroy the missive that he somewhat belatedly received. Otherwise, if this is the kind of reaction that we are to expect, we might check the handwriting and take appropriate action.
I understand only too well the financial implications of some of these schemes. All that my amendment proposes is that those implications should not be the reason for rejection of schemes within the Department. All too often the suspicion is that that is just how things are done. If there is one great thing wrong with the planning procedures, especially in respect of public works in this country, it is that all too often the money is decided first and the scheme tailored accordingly. I am merely trying to prevent the Minister, in his few remaining weeks in office, from falling any further into those bad habits.
However, having said, as we did earlier, that we are prepared to accept any crumbs that we can get—if not from the rich man's table, then from the Minister's—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

EXTENSION OF SECTION I TO OTHER GUIDED TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'instrument' to 'House' in line 22 and insert
'; but no order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 19.

Mr. McLoughlin: These two amendments fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Committee to provide what at least the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will regard as a better form of parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial orders that prescribe modes of guided transport and descriptions of works which interfere with rights of navigation and therefore extend the scope of the order-making powers under clauses 1 and 3.

Ms. Joan Walley: It is always nice to get to the stage of having secured some concessions from the Government. We are grateful for those.
There is one aspect on which I should like to press the Minister further, relating to Government amendment No. 19. Why does not the amendment apply to the whole of clause 3? Clearly it is important that we have the


affirmative resolution procedure. Perhaps I should try to string out my comments so that the relevant message, in the relevant handwriting, can reach the Minister.
As things stand, I do not know whether the Minister has been generous in respect of amendment No. 19, or whether he is trying to give the impression that it relates to all the concerns that we expressed in Committee. What worries me is that what he has come up with, in the shape of amendment No. 19, relates only to such things as tidal barrages, and not to the wider issues of canals and rivers. How generous is the Minister actually being? Why do these amendments not go further? Why do they not extend to the whole of clause 3? Can the Minister, either at this stage or at some later stage, give us some assurance about this matter?

Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment certainly fulfils the commitment that we gave in Committee. I think that I pointed out in Committee the difficulties that we would have in extending this all the way along the line, and that there was not the need. We shall come at a later stage to some of the points about waterways that the hon. Lady may want to talk about.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

ORDERS AS TO INLAND WATERWAYS, ETC.

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'use' and insert 'operation'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
'(4) The reference in subsection (1)(b)(i) above to rights of navigation in waters does not include any right to use or keep any vessel on those waters.'.
Government amendment No. 53.

Mr. McLoughlin: Somewhat unusually, I find myself in the position of moving an amendment with the support of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I am almost sure that he ought to be moving the amendment, because I added my name to the amendment after he had tabled it.
As members of the Committee already know, I have listened carefully to the advice of those who represent users of inland waterways. We have been grateful for their constructive comments, and have agreed that some adjustments to the Bill, like this one, are desirable. The effect of changing the term "use" to "operation" will make for consistency between the clause 3 and the clause 1 order-making power. It will also reassure the users of waterways that the essential purpose of the Bill is for orders to deal with the construction and management of works rather than their abandonment or redevelopment. I am sure that the House will support amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendment to the long title in amendment No. 53.
I understand that amendment No. 54 reflects the concerns of the Inland Waterways Association to protect the position of houseboat owners in certain waters. The association has noted that the parliamentary orders under the Transport Act 1968, which we propose to preserve under amendment No. 24, include the power to interfere with the right to keep a vessel or craft on a canal or inland waterway. The IWA's argument is that ministerial orders

under clause 3(1)(b), which deal with matters outside inland waterways, should not have that power because they are not subject to parliamentary approval.
I cannot accept that it would be reasonable to fetter the Secretary of State's powers as the amendment proposes. Currently, if a Transport Act order is not required, the arrangements for houseboat owners in a works scheme can be made under a private Bill, and there is no reason why a future order under this Bill should not be allowed to make similar arrangements. The position of moorings may be crucial to a particular works scheme under clause 3(1)(b), but it would be for the promoter to convince the Secretary of State and any local inquiry that his proposals were justified. The objections of local boat owners would have to be taken into account, along with the provisions of any existing local enactments and local mooring contracts. Compensation would be available to anyone who had proper rights to moor.
My officials have discussed amendment No. 54 with representatives of the IWA and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. I hope that, in view of its impracticality, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish will agree not to press it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful to the Minister for adding his name to amendment No. 1. It will go some way towards reassuring canal users. However, some of them feel that a move is afoot to increase mooring charges. If some of the moorings that are lost are cheap moorings, people may be forced to pay substantially more for new moorings. I realise that this issue overlaps issues that are dealt with in the private Bill which, I believe, is still in the other place. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will make it clear that this clause is not intended to be used as a reason for increasing mooring charges on canals.

Ms. Walley: It is strange for an amendment to be tabled not just in the name of the Secretary of State for Transport but also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It shows that genuine concerns were expressed by the Opposition in the early stages of the Committee proceedings.
It would be appropriate at this stage to remind the Minister of the widespread concern among those who are worried about the future of our inland waterways. I am grateful that the amendment has been tabled and that flexibility about amending the Bill has been shown in order to meet many of the concerns expressed by the Inland Waterways Association and others. There are about 24,672 readers of Waterways World. I have it on good authority that each copy of that magazine bought is react by three other people. The amount of correspondence that we have received shows that absolutely everybody connected with inland waterways is concerned about this issue. That is why the amendment is so important.
It would be worth while to set out how we have reached this stage. We debated this issue for many hours in Committee. We appreciated the opportunity to have consultations with the Minister. However, those consultations ought to have taken place much earlier. There might never have been so much misunderstanding, mistrust and suspicion among all those who use our inland waterways if consultation had taken place much earlier. Nevertheless, amendment No. 1 does not go—surprise, surprise—far enough for us. I intend to explain briefly why.
We accept that it is perfectly in order for work on canals to take place or for new transport systems to be constructed over, on or below them. However, we do not believe that the definition should be widened. Mistrust has been created by our attempts to try to clarify where responsibilities begin and end. We do not believe that they are set out clearly enough in the definition. I agree with those who criticise those parts of the Bill that deal with inland waterways that ancillary works necessitated by new transport systems could still be carried out under clause 1 and clause 3. No one could blame those concerned for being suspicious. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the fact that a private Bill is being considered in another place which is causing even greater anxiety than there was to begin with.
There appears to have been piecemeal privatisation of the inland waterways, which has caused much concern and outrage. The question is whether amendment No. 1, to substitute the word "operation" for the word "use" in clause 3, with consequential amendment of the long title to correspond, will remove the general powers aspect from the Bill and ensure that only orders referring to the operation of waterways rather than to their use or extinguishment come within the scope of the clause.
My concern is that orders relating to use or extinguishment could still be made under clause 3. The use of a waterway could be terminated or curtailed as a matter ancillary to the carrying out of works under clause 3. We need an absolute assurance from the Minister that, as the Bill stands and as it might stand under future regulations, we have secured this narrow definition of what would or would not be approved under the order-making procedure.
Orders about use or extinguishment might be made as a matter ancillary to the construction or operation of a waterway. For example, a main line waterway might gain more water for its operations by filling in a branch that took water to work a lock. These are fairly technical matters, and not ones with which I am wholly familiar. I understand, however, that my hon. Friends are very concerned about this issue, too. The abandonment of a branch would be ancillary to the operation of the main line, and could be carried out by order under clause 3. I hope that that will give some idea why we feel that even the new definition in the amendment does not take us far enough.
On consultation generally, we are still concerned that there is no parliamentary procedure for orders under clause 3. I accept that we might return to this matter, but it relates to the scope of the amendments before us. The Minister may point out that there is provision for consultation and appeal in the public inquiry process, but most of that will be left to discretion and subordinate legislation. We are concerned that subordinate legislation will be involved. We would like an assurance that no loss of consultation or right of appeal will result from the substitution of a system of orders under the Bill for the private Bill system that exists now.
Amendment No. 54 is designed to clarify what is meant by "rights of navigation" in clause 3(1)(b)(i). It is intended to prevent a temporary order from interfering on a long-term basis with a boat mooring, landing stage or anything else that a person has a right to keep on the

rivers. We would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether "rights of navigation" are intended to include the right to keep a vessel or anything else on the waterways.

7 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend press the Minister on the question of the width of the canal, because I am concerned about traditional boats being able to get through? I understand that, in at least one example, the British Waterways Association has fractionally narrowed the width of a lock gate and, as a result, a whole group of boats is unable to use that stretch of canal.

Ms. Walley: When I said that my hon. Friends knew more about these technical matters than I do, I did not expect such an immediate example. My hon. Friend has made a good point. If the width or gauge—or whatever is the correct navigational term—is too small and is preventing the effective operation of the waterways system, my hon. Friend is right to press the Minister for an assurance that the waterways system will not be restricted because of such a technical matter. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that.
As I said, amendment No. 54 deals with the right to keep a vessel or anything else on the waterways. It is important because the definition in the Transport Act 1968 is wide. It relates specifically to the right to keep a vessel or craft on the water. The problem is that there is no definition in the Bill. Therefore, there is an anomaly. We should know what the Bill is supposed to cover, and I hope that the Minister can clarify it.
It is fair to say that all those connected with the waterways movement—avid readers of Waterways World, those who keep boats on the waterways or those who just enjoy walking along them—are concerned that no attempt has been made by the Government to restrict the powers in the Bill to temporary works on waterways. The Inland Waterways Association and its friends continue to remain suspicious that the Bill's real intention is to close waterways and build transport systems along their dry beds. I should be concerned if we did not get the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has asked. We do not want to see the decline of our waterways in that way.
No protection against temporary closure exists in part VII of the Transport Act 1968, and none is proposed in the Bill. Rights of navigation still exist on rivers. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that any modification or suspension of navigation rights will be temporary and will be kept within reasonable time limits should works be proposed on rivers under clause 3.
I should like to remind the Minister that consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council exists for only two thirds of inland waterways in the country. It is concerned only with waterways under the ownership or management of the British Waterways board, whereas the Bill affects all waterways. It is important that some consideration should be given to whether the IWAAC's remit could be extended to cover all waterways since it is clear that many important issues are related to the operations that could come about as a result of the Bill and the amendments. If we are to feel that we have the safeguards we want, IWAAC needs some teeth in any Government review.
I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the issues that I have outlined. Such reassurances might further reduce the suspicion that still exists among those who use inland waterways.

Mr. Spearing: I must declare an interest, as I have been a member of the Inland Waterways Association for many years. I said in Committee that the way in which the Government have handled clause 3 is totally unsatisfactory and does not bring any assurance of their good faith. That was said time and again in Committee, and it should be said again now and quoted chapter and verse.
The canals in Britain have been a matter of controversy for many years. The foundation Act, the Transport Act 1968, which was the responsibility of my noble Friend Lady Castle was a landmark—or a watermark. For the first time, it provided protection for amenity waterways that were part of the landscape and heritage of the country and not just for recreational or transport use. The water was first ruffled—to use an analogy—during the passage of the Water Bill in 1973, when there was a proposal to absorb the whole of the then co-ordinated waterways system under the British Waterways Board into the regional water authorities then being proposed. An enormous public campaign ensued and the canals were detached, fortunately, from that important Act.
After that, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council was appointed by the House as a statutory body specifically to look after the amenity aspects of the waterways. Yet, as we saw in Committee, in the Government's response to the Select Committee on Procedure's report on private Bills, there was no hint that inland waterways would be an integral part of the Bill.
The original hearings of that Committee dealt with harbours. In a harbour, particularly at its upper end, there is frequently a relatively short stretch of inland waterway or impounded harbour. That was the first issue that we were aware of that related to waterways. In Committee, I challenged the Minister to say when these matters were first brought to the attention of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.
We heard in the end—the Minister cannot deny this —that, as late as October last year, the Minister's official representative on that waterways statutory Committee did not give any notice of the intention to include new clause 3. When the Minister replied to the quotations from parliamentary answers which I read into column 118 of the report of the Committee's proceedings, he could say only that the hon. Member had the Command Paper from which I read, but he could not deny my charge that inland waterways were not included. We got off to a bad start, and I hope that the Minister will agree that I have not been unfair in my broad description of events.
It is even more of a shame that we cannot make further progress on the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) properly said that one part of a waterway will have an intimate effect on another, even the impounding of the headwater which forms the reservoir at the summit of any canal system. A reservoir usually has no navigable connection with the rest of the canal system but is an amenity which is usually and almost entirely owned by the British Waterways Board. It is very valuable property.
The board has large areas of land adjacent to canals and it also has the advantage of being able to sell water. They are an integral part of the drainage system which has grown up for a century or more around the canals.
One of the board's most valuable assets, to which my hon. Friend referred in passing, is the wayleave. One of the features of the canal which we know as the Regent canal, or the Grand Union canal, running from Greenford to what was the Regent's canal dock in Limehouse, is that much of the towpath is used for high tension electricity lines. They are easily installed, easily accessible and easily maintained. British Waterways receives some rent, and good luck to it, but the value of such a wayleave can hardly be exaggerated.
The use of the adjacent land to which I referred is often governed by the original canal Acts, which date from when the canals were constructed a century, or in some cases two centuries, ago. As we know from earlier debates, the Minister, with the powers in clause 3, can change any of those Acts. The Minister may know of a controversy at the moment in the Watford area. I do not know what the future holds for those canals, but I know what it would hold if the party of my noble Friend Lady Castle had anything to do with it. However, I also know what will happen if we have the misfortune of a continuation of the present Administration.
If the Bill is passed, the Government will have in their hands powerful statutory instruments of power if, alas, they are able to use them—I do not think that they will be so able. I do not think that they deserve to. Whatever amends may have been made with a few concessions here and there, their general behaviour on the issue of inland waterways and the lack of proper notification to the statutory bodies bodes ill for their future. Therefore, the safeguards which I and my hon. Friends wish to write into the Bill have every justification. If they are not accepted here or in another place, suspicion will not be dispersed but will, properly—and for good reason—increase.

Mr. McLoughlin: We have gone over the course of the consultation and when the issue first appeared in the Bill on numerous occasions. I return to the question of the private Bill and the new procedures—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Just say sorry.

Mr. McLouglin: The hon. Gentleman says, "Just say sorry," but I have made my views on consultation clear. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) for the constructive way in which we proceeded when the problem was brought to my attention. However, the issue was covered in the Government's original consultation document published in June 1990 —Command Paper 1110, paragraph 49. I shall not read it out.

Ms. Walley: I do not wish to go over ground that we have covered again and again in Committee, but does the Minister believe that the problem is that one part of the Department of the Environment did not know what the Department of Transport was doing?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady can draw her own conclusions, and she has. Whatever I say will not change them, so I shall not waste the House's time in trying to do so.
There was definitely an attempt to reach a general agreement, and I accept that a reassurance was needed. I now know that the editor of Waterways World is a constituent of mine. I can assure the hon. Lady that, for a number of reasons, I shall try to placate and meet the representations made by that publication and that those reasons may not be unconnected with the events that may occur in the next few months.
I was asked a number of specific questions which I shall try to answer. Some of the general questions will be dealt with during debates on other amendments, so I shall not attempt to deal with them now. That is true especially of some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked whether there would be an increase in charges. Even before I had received a note from the Box, I had written on my own notes that we see no reason why charges should be increased. The measure is not designed specifically to increase them.
Temporary work closures will be covered during the debate on the next group of amendments and general powers will be covered in the debate on Government amendment No. 20. The question of width reduction requires an order under the Transport Act 1968. If Government amendment No. 24 is passed, it will continue to do so. Therefore, I do not think that there will be any difficulty in convincing the House of the need to accept that amendment.
The consultations and meetings held during the Committee stage were undoubtedly useful. Government amendments Nos. 1 and 53 go some way—not all the way, because there are more amendments to be considered—to meeting some of the concerns expressed to us.

Ms. Walley: Knowing what I now know about the relationship between the Minister and his constituent—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I was a little remiss. The hon. Lady needs the leave of the House to speak again.

Ms. Walley: With the leave of the House, I should like to draw attention to the Minister's remarks about the editor of Waterways World. If we have not been granted all the concessions, perhaps we can look forward to further concessions in another place in view of the impending general election.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms. Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 2, line 13, at end insert
'or Part VII of the Transport Act 1968'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may also consider the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
'(4) Nothing in this section shall in any way supersede the provisions of Part VII of the Transport Act 1968.'.
Government amendment No. 24.
No. 60, in schedule 1, page 33, line 12, at end insert
'other than land under an inland waterway'.
No. 55, in clause 11, page 6, line 34, at end insert
`and
(c) where such an order as is mentioned in section 5(6) above is required so as to give effect to any of the

proposals, any person who is entitled to be consulted under Schedule 13 to the Transport Act 1968 in respect of that Order.'
No. 56, in clause 15, page 9, line 14, at beginning insert
`Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
No. 57, in page 9, line 18, at end insert—
`(3A) Regulations under this section shall not—

(a) exclude the application of any provision in Part VII of the Transport Act 1968; or
(b) modify the application of any such provision so as to deprive any person of the right to receive notification of any matter or of the opportunity to make representations or objections in relation to any matter.'.

No. 58, in clause 62, page 30, line 34, after 'transport', insert
`(other than transport over an inland waterway)'.
No. 59, in page 30, line 41, at end insert
`(and for the purposes of this definition the definition of "harbour" in section 57(1) of that Act shall have effect as if after the words "sea-going ships" there were inserted the words "of at least 500 deadweight tons")'.

Ms. Walley: I shall be brief, because it is important that we make progress.
Under Government amendment No. 26, the Secretary of State is given discretion not to make an order if it can be achieved by other means. Therefore, if it does not go far enough to remove from the scope of the Bill matters which at present are firmly within part VII of the Transport Act 1968, there is an anomaly with the Harbours Act 1964.
The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain why, if it is right to exclude matters whose primary object can be carried out under the Harbours Act, it is not right to exclude matters under the Transport Act when the primary object is a matter under the Transport Act. That harks back to what the Government's intentions really are. We feel that it would be easy for the Minister to accord the Transport Act 1968 equal status with the Harbours Act 1964. An assurance along those lines would go some way towards removing much of the suspicion that still exists.
Amendment No. 55 was tabled to ensure that, when an order was made by the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council or another organisation entitled to be consulted under schedule 13 to the Transport Act 1968, and that body told the Secretary of State that it wanted a hearing, the Secretary of State would be obliged either to give it a hearing or to have a local inquiry.
We should like an assurance that nobody will lose rights of consultation as a result of the new procedure—we are returning to ground that we covered in Committee. We want to know why the IWAAC is not named on the face of the Bill. So far, I have not been convinced by the arguments that it has much greater powers than the Transport Users Consultative Committee, and that therefore it does not need to be named. I should like an assurance that the IWAAC will be consulted. I know that I dwelt briefly on the subject on a previous group of amendments, but we still believe that it is reasonable for a statutory body to be given such an assurance. I shall listen closely to the Minister's reply.
Amendment No. 57 is a substantive amendment, aimed to give amendment No. 56 the force that we would like, by providing in the amendment to clause 15 that an order under part VII of the Transport Act 1968 will continue to be required. The Government have ensured that clause 15 will apply where part VII orders are needed, but under


clause 15(3) the Secretary of State may make regulations modifying the effect of part VII to ensure that proceedings are taken concurrently.
The amendments are designed to ensure that the regulations will not exclude the application of any provision of part VII of the 1968 Act—we come back again and again to the difference between the Bill and the 1968 Act. The amendments are also intended to ensure that no person who had a right to be notified under the 1968 Act would lose that right as a result of the Bill. Again, we need an assurance that the Bill will not prejudice the rights listed in amendment No. 57. I do not want the Government to wriggle out of their responsibilities under the 1968 Act. In Committee, we talked time and again about the safeguards already existing under the 1968 Act, and we feel that the Government could easily give us an assurance that those safeguards will continue, and will not be replaced by new order-making procedures under the Bill.
Amendment No. 58 is an amendment to the definition of the term "guided transport". We imagine that that term was not intended to apply to waterways, and I hope that the Minister will agree. The amendment is designed to ensure that the term cannot be used to cover circumstances in which boats are towed or pushed by external means.
I have already said that the Bill involves many technical matters, and I am learning about them all the time. The matter is not as easy and straightforward as it looks. Although the Minister has given reassurances, I do not believe that he would wish there to be any doubt about the definition of the term "guided transport". Will he reassure us that that term will not be used in relation to that aspect of inland waterways? It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, an order under clause 1 could be made in respect of an inland waterway system in which vessels were towed rather than proceeding under their own power. Why is such a system not excluded under clause 1? Perhaps the Government have no intention of including such a wide definition, but I should like reassurance on the point.
Amendment No. 59 would amend the definition of the term "inland waterway". It was intended to ensure that orders under the Bill could be made in respect of the inland part of the waterways managed by harbour authorities. Will the Minister assure me that the Harbours Act cannot be used for orders in respect of inland waterways? I do not know whether he has already accepted the point—we may be debating an issue which is not really an issue. However, there is only one way of settling the matter—the Minister could do it easily by taking our amendment on board, and relating the provision to ships
of at least 500 deadweight tons".
That would satisfy us that the Harbours Act could not be used for orders relating to inland waterways.
Schedule 1 is extremely wide—we have found that out in our discussions in Committee. The Government may say that, in relation to waterways, the schedule can be used only in the context of clause 3, but we have already seen that clause 3 is wide open, so that the inland waterways system could be destroyed, or at least radically reduced.
Amendment No. 60, to paragraph 5 of schedule 1, is designed to clarify whether agreements on land apply to land under water. Why is water not mentioned in paragraph 5, although it is mentioned in paragraph 4? What I have said about rights over land and rights over water may he simply a drafting point, but there is an

inconsistency. The Government do not seem to have thought the matter through, so we should like an assurance on it.

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall bring the House up to date with our conversations with the inland waterways interests. We wrote to the organisations before tabling our amendments, to explain what we intended to do. When we saw the amendments—other than amendment No. 95, which came later—officials of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport sought a meeting with the IWAAC and the Inland Waterways Association in order to gain a better understanding of the amendments. A meeting took place on 10 February. I believe that those present found it helpful. Officials explained why we thought the amendments that they sought were not necessary and, in some cases, not really in their interests. Officials also touched on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. (Mr. Bennett). I shall repeat what was said.
I shall also comment at this stage on a letter sent to a number of hon. Members by the chief executive of the Inland Waterways Association after the meeting to which I have just referred. She raised five points. First, she said that the powers in the Bill were extremely wide. That is a matter of judgment. Secondly, she said that the Bill could be used for closing waterways. If amendment No. 24 is carried, that will not be the case. The third point in the letter was that the Bill could alter the constitution of the IWAAC and the British Waterways Board. If amendments Nos. 20 to 22 are carried, that will not be the case. The fourth point was that rights of navigation could be extinguished. That is possible, but not on the BWB canals, because there are no rights there.
The fifth point in the letter was that the powers will exist without parliamentary sanction or binding requirement to consult. We discussed that at great length in Committee. Closure of a waterway will be subject to parliamentary sanction—that comes under part VII of the 1968 Act—and consultation must take place on orders under this Bill, because that will be in the rules which we have already circulated.
The letter also mentions temporary closures. Nothing in part VII of the 1968 Act prevents temporary closures for maintenance. Indeed, the duty of maintenance could not be carried out without them. The Bill makes that position no worse, since no authority is required for temporary closures. If the IWA thought that a waterway authority was abusing its powers, it would have recourse to the courts. That is the only possible solution.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister talks about safeguarding the rules. I hope that he will confirm that it is up to the Government to change the rules if they wish to do so.

Mr. McLoughlin: I accept that. We went some way to meet the concern about the rules by ensuring that the instruments could be debatable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman approves. We discussed at great length in Committee why there should be rules which were not necessarily on the face of the Bill because events and circumstances change. There was a general acceptance of the reason for rules.
7.30 pm
The amendments fall into a number of sub-groups, and the first comprises amendments Nos. 95, 3 and 24. Government amendment No. 24 fulfils the promise made in Committee and in correspondence with the IWAAC. It preserves from amendment, by order under clause 1 or clause 3, those sections of the Transport Act 1968 that deal with closure and other events concerning inland waterways. It is superior to either amendment No. 95 or amendment No. 3, in that it covers clause 1 as well. Amendment No. 95 really does not help. Unlike orders under the Harbours Act, orders under part VII of the 1968 Act cannot authorise works; they can only give consent to certain of them taking place. If amendment No. 24 is carried, the consent sections of part VII will he preserved. Amendment No. 95 is therefore redundant.
We have looked at part VII to see whether we should have included any more sections, as amendment No. 3 would. Section 111 deals with access agreements. Access agreements exist under countryside legislation to provide the public with access to open country. They are dealt with by local planning authorities and are discretionary, depending on agreement with landowners. The effect of section 111 is to limit the scope of access agreements to BWB's remaining waterways. These days, I doubt whether the House would favour such a limitation. So the preservation of section 111 is likely to make access worse, not better. Section 113 is about byelaws and can have effect only if the waterway owner wishes. Since he also initiates orders, there is little point in specifying that that section must be preserved.
I must confess to being slightly confused by the logic of amendment No. 60. If it is intended to safeguard land under inland waterways, a similar exclusion should have been proposed for paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 1, which deal with the acquisition of land and rights in land. The purpose of paragraph 5 is to make it clear that orders under clauses 1 or 3 can adjust or rescind private agreements or contracts relating to land affected by the proposed works. If the Secretary of State were to sanction such a provision, he would be bound by the rules of natural justice to ensure that proper arrangements had been made for protection of the interests affected by this provision and, where necessary, for financial compensation. I can see no reason why inland waterways should be excluded from such provisions.
The effect of amendment No. 60 could be very undesirable. It could, for example, fetter the ability of the Secretary of State to authorise an order for a new railway under the River Thames—or under any other inland waterway for that matter. That is clearly unacceptable, and I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) will not press the amendment.
On amendments Nos. 55 to 57, I recognise the desire of Opposition Members to expand the protection afforded in the Bill to the interests of inland waterway users. I fear, however, that the amendments will not, in practice, have that effect.
I turn to amendment No. 57 and the linked amendment No. 56. If Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are carried, it will simply not be possible to do in regulations the second half of what amendment No. 57 seeks to prevent. Regulations under clause 15 will be able only to assimilate two procedures so that the process of giving notice and public inquiries can be run in parallel. It cannot oust the rights of anyone. The first part of amendment No.

57 is positively undesirable, because it would mean that we could not line up schedule 13 to the 1968 Act with the procedure under the Bill. We have explained in detail to the IWAAC what is proposed and shall, of course, consult on the draft of the regulations, which are subject to the annulment procedure. But since what we shall propose would make the promoter—not the Minister—propose closure, and would give a longer objection period and a better inquiry procedure, the IWAAC rather favours what we are doing—or so it said at the meeting.
As a consequence, amendment No. 55 is unnecessary. Schedule 13 already gives, in substance, the rights that amendment No. 55 would confer. Since the regulations to be made under clause 15 displace those rights, organisations representative of waterway organisations will still be able to insist on an inquiry.
I make the general point to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that, as a result of the Bill, we are moving the locus standi. That is genuinely welcome, because it gives bodies such as the IWAAC and any other body more rights than they had previously. Most people have welcomed that change.
Amendment No. 58 is misconceived. I understand that the Inland Waterways Association which suggested the amendment had in mind that orders could be made under clause 1 to authorise the operation of horse-drawn barges or remote controlled ships on inland waterways. That is wrong, because those vessels would not in themselves constitute a transport system. The system is the inland waterway and any proposal relating to the construction or operation of inland waterways which needed statutory authorisation would come under clause 3.
On amendment No. 59, the definition of "inland waterway" in clause 62 has deliberately been drafted to provide a clear dividing line between waterways to be covered by the Bill and those technically defined as harbours, for which provision is already made in the Harbours Act 1964. The amendment I moved in Committee on 23 January was designed to tighten the definition so that it includes waterways that are owned by harbour authorities, but are not managed by them in their capacity as a harbour authority.
Opposition Members may have reasons, which I must admit I do not see, for wanting to include waterways that are harbours in the scope of part I. I am not aware of any significant advantages of one system over the other, and it would therefore seem practical to let the existing harbour order procedure have precedence. Indeed, I believe that the amendment would considerably muddy the clear delineation we have provided and possibly allow a promoter to apply for a works order under both pieces of legislation. There would be plenty of scope for confusion, both for the applicant and for the Minister responsible for making decisions.
I hope that I have gone some way to explain how we came to our decisions. We have taken on board seriously many of the points raised on numerous occasions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North for her part in that. Government amendment No. 24 goes some way to meet some of the concerns. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment, but to support Government amendment No. 24.

Ms. Walley: We have had a technical and complicated response to technical and complicated amendments. We have set out our concerns time and again, and we accept


that the Government have gone some way to meeting them. I note what the Minister has said. There are some outstanding concerns and we are not sure whether the Government's response to the points made by the IWAAC and by others connected with the waterways shows that their concerns have been taken on board.
I am mindful of the fact that the Bill has not completed all its stages. Indeed, there may be some doubt about whether it will do so before our positions are reversed. Given that the Bill will be considered in another place, and having regard to the Minister's comments about the consultation that has already taken place and about the consultation that he envisages will take place on the regulations, in a spirit of co-operation I ask the Minister to continue with the process of consultation which seemed to be interrupted before the Bill was printed. The Minister has already given an assurance that he will continue that consultation. I hope that it will be taken on board before the Bill goes to its next stage.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, at end insert
`; and any such statutory instrument shall list all those bodies which have been consulted about its content.'.
The amendment is eminently sensible, but as the Secretary of State has not added his name to it, I suspect that the Minister will come up with some excuse for not accepting it. I will listen with interest.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) caught me out on a number of occasions in Committee by the brevity with which he moved amendments.
I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to explain why we thought that it was not appropriate to accept his proposal. The essential purpose of this amendment is, I understand, to make it easier to check on compliance with any requirements in the procedure rules which we have drafted to consult particular bodies. It seems to me that doing that at the end of the process when the Secretary of State decides on the application is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Surely it is more logical for the matter of compliance with the rules to be verified as soon as an application has been made. Then, if there has been an unintentional failure to comply with some small requirement, say, it will be possible to correct it before the process of considering the application gets under way. If, however, the rules have been deliberately flouted, the application can be turned away at once.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment also touches on the important subject of consultation before an application is made, which I know some would like to be the subject of comprehensive statutory requirements. I do not intend to rehearse at length my explanation in Committee of the practical difficulties of doing that. Suffice to say that we shall expect all applicants to consult properly with relevant persons as they work out their proposals—applicants will suffer only needless delay to their schemes later if they do not do so. One needs to promote what one will do and try to get general agreement.
It is, of course, reasonable for those who will be affected by schemes to want to find out about them and to comment on them at an early stage. I do not believe, however, that a wide-ranging statutory requirement to

consult would help in that respect. The requirement in the draft rules for prospective applicants to consult the local planning authority about proposals in orders for development, and the requirement which will apply in many cases for applicants to prepare environmental statements, will help to ensure that their projects could not be kept out of the public domain for too long.
The stage at which we shall impose statutory requirements on applicants will be when they submit their draft orders in final form to the Secretary of State. The draft procedure rules make comprehensive provision about the people and the organisations to whom they will have to give notice of their application and, in some cases, provide a full set of application documents.
We intend to add to the procedure rules a requirement for applicants to submit an affidavit demonstrating proof of compliance. That will be available for public inspection, and if someone discovers from it that they have not been notified of an application when they should have been, they will, if necessary, be able to seek redress from the courts.
I hope that the change that we intend to make to the rules goes some way toward reassuring the hon. Gentleman of our attempt to try to meet some of his points. I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have the Minister's comments on the record. There is a slight irony about this part of the Bill. The Government told us that they were keen to consult, and that everything would be all right. However, the evidence is that consultation did not take place at the right time. There is some advantage in having the longstop, but when the order is made, it must list all those people who have been consulted.
Since we need to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

DESCRIPTION OF WORKS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 3

Amendment made, No. 19, in page 2, line 19, leave out from 'instrument' to 'House' in line 20 and insert
'; but no order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each'.

Clause 5

SUBJECT-MATTER OF ORDERS UNDER SECTIONS I AND 3

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 27, leave out from 'any' to 'which' in line 28 and insert 'statutory provision'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 2, line 30, leave out from '3' to end of line 34.

Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22.

No. 105, in page 2, line 34, at end insert
'provided that both Houses of Parliament have approved by resolution a list or schedule of changes provided for in the order, and that such a list or schedule shall have been laid before each House of Parliament for two months prior to such approval.'.
No. 106, in page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. McLoughlin: I undertook in Committee to reconsider the drafting of clause 5(3)(b) because we accepted that the powers that it would confer on the Secretary of State were too wide. As drafted, the provision would allow him to alter permanently legislation which is of general application, without any reference to Parliament—a point on which we had a good debate led by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It was about Henry VIII.

Mr. McLoughlin: Exactly. I probably learned much about parliamentary procedure. I recommend that hon. Members read some of our debates in Committee, as they were well rehearsed.
The Joint Committee recognised that many orders will involve changes to works which have previously been authorised by private Act; so it must be possible for orders to make changes in the law which applies specifically to the works in question, in the same way that private Bills already do. The amendments that we are now proposing will make it clear that that power is to be restricted to Acts and instruments which are of local application only.
It may help the House if I give some examples of what the amendments would and would not allow orders to provide for. They would allow changes in provisions of local application in previous private Acts and hybrid Acts which relate to working or operation of a railway or an inland waterway. The example that I quoted in Committee —the change in the Severn Navigation Act 1842—is one such Act. If, for example, the railway works provided for in the Channel Tunnel Act needed alteration, an order could achieve that, as long as the provisions were of local application only. An order could not alter public legislation or private legislation of a general nature. Thus it would not be possible to change by order the general duties which are contained in the British Waterways Board Bill, presently in another place, should it pass into law.
The amendments will not affect the scope of clause 5(3)(a), which provides for an order to modify or exclude enactments relating to the subject matter of the order. That power properly includes enactments of general application, because it may be necessary to make adjustments to the way in which public general Acts apply where they do not fit the circumstances of a particular case.
I hope that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will not press his amendment. It would mean that orders could not amend legislation of local application and that, by inference, measures which required that should all come to this House as private Bills. I hope that his amendment was a fly cast across the water in order to raise the fish on the amendment paper in my right hon. Friend's name.
Similarly, I ask the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) not to press amendment No. 105 on this subject. Although it at least retains the possibility of orders amending legislation, it would mean that any order which sought to amend legislation of local application would have to come to Parliament for approval. There are likely to be many instances of that. For example, most orders with compulsory acquisition powers will disapply the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. It would be unreasonable to delay the aproval of such orders when we have agreed that the essential purpose of the reforms is to remove consideration of local matters from Parliament.
Referring to amendment No.106, I appreciate that the purpose of clause 5(4) is perhaps a little obscure. I can nevertheless assure the hon. Member for Newham, South that it does not amount to a licence for the Secretary of State to include in orders all sorts of provisions way beyond the scope of the Bill. It is concerned with rather technical matters which have long been included in private Bills.
Subsection (4) is essentially a "sweeping-up" provision. It would sanction, for example, a provision extending a time limit for the exercise of powers granted in a previous order, or a provision which prescribed different dates for the coming into force of different parts of an order. There is nothing more sinister in subsection (4) than that, but, without it, there would be a definite risk that applicants would have to come to Parliament to be sure of getting all the powers necessary to bring their proposals to fruition. That is clearly undesirable, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree not to press amendment 106.
I invite the House to endorse amendments Nos. 20 to 22.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister has referred to amendments Nos.105 and 106. As he has reflected, amendment No.105 would enlighten the House. He said that it would bring the House back into play in matters which it wishes to remove from its purview. Clause 5(3)(b) states that an order may
make such amendments, repeals and revocations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision of the order or otherwise in connection with the order",
and that they should be listed, be known and receive the approval of the House.
My great worry about most of the Bill is not only about the removal of the procedure, over which there can be a legitimate difference of view, but it carries with it the power of the Minister to alter legislation passed by the House. When people believe that their rights are entrenched, if those rights are removed without due notice even to the House, confidence in our procedures could be undermined.
How often have we heard people say, "It is all right: it is entrenched in an Act of Parliament"? People make the reasonable assumption that only another Act of Parliament can repeal or amend a provision. It is a common-sense attitude. As I said earlier, most Members of Parliament probably do not know that an Act can, indeed, be changed or repealed by a statutory instrument, let alone one which, following our earlier discussion, will not even come before the House.
The Minister says that we must have in the Bill the words that I quoted from clause 5. He says that it will not be outside the scope of the Bill. But the scope of the Bill is—I will not say beyond the horizon—tremendous. So I am afraid that the words penned by the Secretary of State or someone else, with the intention of being reassuring, are not in the least reassuring, because the scope is so wide.
Amendment No. 106 seeks to remove the whole of clause 5(4). It is one of the most stringent parts of the Bill. I shall read out subsection 4(a) and connect with it the latter part of subsection 4(a)(iii). It says:
any provision that appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for giving full effect to— … an instrument made under an Act of Parliament before that time, and which is of a kind which could be included in an order under section 1 or 3 above;".


"That time" is the time at which the Bill comes into force. In other words, the subsection is a specific formula which allows any Secretary of State to amend any instrument made under an Act, perhaps a long time ago, which comes within the scope of the Bill.
We are talking about retrospectively changing legislation, and not even by means of a new statutory instrument. I still object to the measure in principle. I am afraid that the words that the Secretary of State used are far from reassuring, although they may have been designed with that objective. Alas, I find the reverse.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have come late to this part of the Bill, but has the hon. Gentleman got it the right way round? Reading subsection (4)(a)(iii), it strikes me that the Secretary of State's power is to give effect to a provision contained in an Act of Parliament. It does not seem to relate to making an order which does not seek to fulfil the purposes of an Act of Parliament passed before this Bill gave the Secretary of State the order-making power. Or have I misunderstood?

Mr. Spearing: I will intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech, if I may Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the provision gives the Secretary of State power to change legislation retrospectively when an Act comes within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, any legislation that sets up a railway, tramway, waterway, inland harbour, barrage or anything similar would surely come within the scope of subsection (4)(a)(iii). Therefore, once the Bill is enacted, the Minister will surely have strong retrospective powers. That is entrenched in the Bill.

Mr. Bottomley: My reading is that the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to give effect to a provision in an Act of Parliament. Subsection (4)(a)(iii) does not enable him to destroy a power created in a previous Act of Parliament. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to reinforce an Act and make it effective.

Mr. McLoughlin: The Bill allows an order to overcome provisions in a local act of local significance, as an order can overcome a private Bill. In Committee, hon. Members expressed anxiety that the original powers were far too wide and could overcome any legislation. Today we have sought to tighten and tidy up the powers in response to the points made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 2, line 31, after 'revocations', insert
'of statutory provisions of local application'.

No. 22, in page 2, line 34, at end insert
'and for the purposes of this subsection "statutory provision" means provision of an Act of Parliament or of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament.'— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 6, at end add—
'(6) An order under section 1 or 3 above shall not extinguish any public right of way over land unless the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a) that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided, or
(b) that the provision of an alternative right of way is not required.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 6, at end add—

'(6) An order under section 1 or 3 above shall not extinguish any public right of way over land unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that a reasonably convenient alternative right of way exists or will he provided.'.

Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment fulfils another promise which I gave in Committee to consider whether further provision was necessary in the Bill to protect footpaths and bridleways which may be affected by works proposed in orders under clauses 1 or 3 of the Bill.
As I told the Committee, I should prefer to base a provision about this on section 251 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because that example allows the Secretary of State some discretion in deciding whether the circumstances of a case justify the provision of an alternative right of way. However, I understand that the Rights of Way Review Committee favours amendment No. 6, proposed by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). This is based on section 14 of the Highways Act 1980 and would mean that in any case where an order under clauses 1 or 3 included a provision for extinguishing a right of way it would be necessary to provide a reasonably convenient alternative route if one did not already exist.
While I have much sympathy with those who are concerned to protect our footpath network, I consider that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is a little too inflexible. It would clearly not be sensible to oblige an applicant for an order to incur the cost of providing a diversion if it would not be used. I gather that, because of this restriction, the definition of "reasonably convenient" has been stretched somewhat when new roads have been built. But the amendment is a bad way of proceeding. Our amendment is much clearer. We shall, of course, issue guidance to applicants about how rights of way issues will be assessed, and I shall be happy to consult the Rights of Way Review Committee about that in due course.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southport will not feel it necessary to press his amendments as I have given an assurance that I will meet the wishes of the Rights of Way Review Committee.

Mr. Snape: I shall be brief. I wish to ask the Minister whether the rights of way referred to in an amendment include rights of way over water as well as over land. I do not expect him to give me an instant reply, but if they do not, that would sit rather oddly with Government amendment No. 33, which specifies that rights of way over land include rights of navigation over water, and paragraph 10 of schedule 1, where rights of way over land are specified as including rights of navigation over water. I hope that those who, if not walk on the water, sail on it, are not to be treated worse than those who enjoy rights of way over land. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point.

Mr. Fearn: In view of what the Minister said, I have no wish to press amendment No. 6. Earlier, I raised a point about the disabled which has still not been dealt with. I t may come under this amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the point now.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) may not want to press amendment No. 6, but my name was added to it and I believe that it has some merits over Government amendment No. 23. The term "reasonably convenient" would be useful in the Bill. I am certainly conscious that the Rights of Way


Review Committee includes the Ramblers Association and other bodies that are experts on footpath matters, at least nationally. However, such bodies tend to depend on volunteers. In some parts of the country, they do not have the coverage that they or I would like, so one finds that often footpath matters have to be taken up by someone who does not know all the details of the legislation.
If "reasonably convenient" is included in the Bill it will be a good hint or guide to anyone pursuing a case that he has a line of argument or attack when a closure or diversion is proposed by an organisation. There is a great deal of difference between providing an alternative and providing a "reasonably convenient" alternative. The Minister ought to make it easy for people who may be affected by legislation to appreciate the rights and arguments that they can use without needing to consult national bodies which are experts on such matters or seek legal advice from a lawyer.
The Minister should reconsider the matter to find out why the phrase "reasonably convenient" cannot be on the face of the Bill, because it is the sort of phrase that a lay person will understand. It is important that legislation is easy for people to understand if it diverts footpaths.
The Minister says that he cannot accept amendment No. 6 and insert those words in the Bill because it would mean that an alternative path would have to be made, even if no one used it. The Minister knows that, if no one uses a path, it is easy for it to be closed. A notice is served and no one objects to the closure if no one uses the path. Therefore, there is no difficulty. If people use a path, it is not satisfactory to put in an alternative. It is important that it is a reasonably convenient alternative.
I hope that, if the Minister does not accept amendment No. 6 now, he will consider whether the words can be inserted in the House of Lords—I know that he is keen for no amendments to be made there—so that people outside who have to work with this legislation and who are not experts will get a hint from the wording of the Bill.

8 pm

Mr. McLoughlin: To answer the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—as I was not able to do in an intervention—rights of way over water are in effect rights of navigation. Both are covered by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) asked earlier about the rights of disabled people, and he also asked me about their rights in relation to the provision of crossings which may be affected by closing the rights of way over railways. When we consider crossings, we bear in mind rights for disabled people. We try to accommodate them. They do not have many rights at level crossings of any description at present, because of the roughness of the ground and the rail tracks. However, I am sure that that will be improved as a result of earlier amendments, because it will obviously be taken into consideration, although it is a matter for the operator to decide.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked me to consider his amendment more fully. Of course I shall consider it in the light of the representations that he has made. I am prepared to meet the Rights of Way Review Committee to discuss what it is proposing and to try to achieve some agreement. If we

cannot get agreement, it may well be pursued in another place, but I hope that we can achieve a general agreement which will satisfy the people involved.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the Minister hopes to have a further meeting before the legislation moves to another place, can he tell us the timetable in another place? Is it true that the Bill has to be finished by 16 March?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall deal with this place and worry about the timetable here. I hope that we can make progress tonight. On that understanding, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

SCHEMES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 5, line 8, at end insert
'unless that provision gives effect to modifications of the proposal which have themselves been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament passed on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 85, in page 5, line 8, at end insert—
(5A) Where the findings of any public inquiry held under section 11 of this Act are inconsistent with the proposals approved by a resolution in accordance with this section an order shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. McLoughlin: Amendment No. 86 would enable the Secretary of State to invite Parliament to vote for a new resolution relating to a scheme of national significance in circumstances where he wanted to modify the order in such a way that it would conflict with the terms of the original resolution approved by Parliament. Although we would expect that to be a rare occurrence, we think that circumstances could arise when—probably following a public inquiry and in the light of the inspector's subsequent recommendations—the Secretary of State would want to make changes to the order which were not wholly consistent with the terms of the resolution.
As clause 9 is currently drafted, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to make those changes, even if there was a broad agreement that they were desirable or necessary, without starting the whole authorisation process from the beginning. We think that that is too inflexible and could militate against good decision-making, because the Secretary of State might be tempted to turn down desirable modifications in the interests of making progress with the project.
The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State would be able—subject to Parliament's approval to a new resolution—to modify the order in a way which properly reflected the outcome of the inquiry and the inspector's recommendations. However, before going back to Parliament, the Secretary of State would have to proceed in accordance with the procedures in clause 13(3). That would involve notifying every person who would be affected by the modifications to the scheme and giving those persons an opportunity of making representations to him.
In certain circumstances—for example, where new statutory objectors insisted on a right to be heard—the


public inquiry would have to be reopened to examine the proposed changes. It might also be necessary for the applicant to prepare a supplementary environmental statement. The Secretary of State would almost certainly want to publish the Inspector's report at the same time as he announced that he was minded to make changes to the order.
Assuming that the Secretary of State was satisfied, following the outcome of further consultations, that the amendments should be made, he would table a new resolution, which would be debated in each House. He would also arrange for all relevant supporting documents to be deposited in Parliament. The timing of the debates would be a matter for the business managers but would have to allow Members of this House and the other place sufficient time to have read the additional material, including the inspector's report, and to have received representations from the public.
I hope that the way in which we have moved forward meets some of the concerns expressed by members of the Committee, and that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) will not press amendment No. 85, on the basis that our amendment achieves what he wants but does not fetter the Secretary of State's discretion.

Mr. Fearn: I am afraid that I must still press my amendment No. 85, because I wish to release public inquiries from the straitjacket which seems to surround them, even with the amendment tabled by the Government. That straitjacket will be worn if clause 9 is unamended.
Many organisations, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the National Trust, are concerned that clause 9 has reversed the procedure recommended by the Government in their consultation paper. They believe that Parliament would have inadequate information on which to base its considerations. Since detailed objections will not have been heard, Parliament will be in no position to judge the reasons for public decisions or concerns. What is even more serious is that it is inevitable that, once Parliament has blessed a project in principle, the terms of reference of any public inquiry will be severely constrained. That will give rise to frustration on the part of objectors and to limitations on the scope and value of any public inquiry.
The danger is that public perception of the impartiality of public inquiries will be affected. Such inquiries command public confidence because inspectors are seen to be genuinely impartial and feel free to make recommendations which have radical or minor significance.
The Secretary of State has recognised some of the difficulties by moving his amendment, but that does not go far enough. Under my amendment, if a public inquiry makes a recommendation which is inconsistent with the original recommendation passed by Parliament, the Secretary of State must bring the matter back before both Houses for approval, even if the draft order is consistent with the original resolution. In other words, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the scheme again when in full possession of all the facts and evidence and has knowledge of public opinion.
I listened intently to what the Minister said about his amendment, but it does not go far enough. My amendment will put the matter right.

Mr. McLoughlin: I do not see what point the hon. Gentleman's amendment would serve. If Parliament has already agreed in principle, I see no point in Parliament agreeing to it again. Parliament should be consulted if there is a major change, but it should not be asked to confirm something to which it has already agreed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In certain circumstances, the situation could change. There could be a general election and a different Parliament might be involved. That would make it a different issue. [Interruption.] If the Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way. If he wants us to stay here a long time, I shall also be happy to oblige. I point out to him that I moved an amendment very quickly, and I could move another series of amendments quickly. However, if the Whip wants to prolong the debate by making such interventions from a sedentary position, I shall oblige by continuing to talk.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has said that, if a general election takes place or if there is a change in the political circumstances, Parliament might want to review the matter. I take that point, but it would be open to the Secretary of State not to make the order.

Mr. Bennett: It would be left to the Secretary of State to decide to make the order, but I am sure that the Minister is well aware that issues such as this do not necessarily divide the House on party political lines. What divides hon. Members who are more interested in conservation from those who are not sometimes depends on whether they represent urban or rural constituencies.
If the public inquiry is to have the chance to air the issues, and if we are concerned about the democratic process, those on the inquiry will not only try to influence the inspectorate, but they should also try to influence the whole country. If strong arguments emerge at that inquiry, Parliament may want to take them into account.
The Minister has a dilemma with the Bill. All we can do is see how in practice it will work. I suspect that, sooner or later, Parliament will give approval to something as a result of initial consideration, and an inquiry will be held and various points will be starkly brought out. The Minister, believing that Parliament has already approved the matter, will want to give the go-ahead. However, if Parliament were tested, it might decide that as a result of the public inquiry, circumstances had changed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, amendment No.113 in page 6, line 19, after `heard', Insert
subject to section 11(7) below.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this is will be convenient to take the following amendments: No.114, in page 6, line 20, at end insert—
`(2A) The Secretary of State may give a person who makes an objection in accordance with rules under section 10 assistance with legal and administrative costs incurred before, during and after an appearance before a person appointed by the Secretary of State.'.
No. 115, in page 6, line 34, at end insert


`and (c) any community or environmental group which is representative of any local authority area in which works authorised by the proposed order are to be carried out;'.
No. 116, in page 6, line 35, leave out 'paragraph (a)' and insert 'paragraphs (a) and (c)'.

No. 117, in page 6, line 38, at end insert
'and for the purposes of paragraph (c) above, community and environmental group means conservation, archaelogical, art or environmental or similar group.'.

No. 118, in page 7, line 4, at end add—
`(7) No person shall be appointed by the Secretary of State without approval being sought from the community and environmental groups under section 11(4)(c).'.

Mr. Hughes: Such is the bizarre nature of our business that I sprinted over to the House an hour ago thinking it was time to move my amendment. I have had time to watch two television programmes since then.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman should have been listening to the debate.

Mr. Hughes: I have been in and out of the Chamber.
The amendments have three interrelated aims. Amendment Nos. 113 and 115 attempt to widen the number of people who are consulted about an application. Amendment No. 114 seeks to give groups financial assistance when they appear before a public inquiry. Amendment No. 118 will give the local community some say in the selection of inspectors at a public inquiry. I hope that it is clear to the House that the theme which connects the amendments is a desire to give community groups a greater say in planning applications.
Traditionally, much of the private business that has gone through the House has been of relevance to London Members. One of the strongest arguments against changing the procedures governing that business and transferring much of it from the House is that we spend a great deal of time dealing with railway and underground legislation that has specific relevance to Members representing London. The King's Cross Railways Bill, for example, has occupied much of the House's time.
I have been here for nine years, and in most of that time, we have passed one or more private Bills that have affected Southwark and Bermondsey. It is often a difficult battle to try to get the legislation right and to force the promoters to accept a change. Therefore, in many senses the idea of replacing a parliamentary debate and Committee stage in two Houses with a public inquiry is a welcome one. However, the proposal has defects, and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my amendments.
I listened to the earlier debate about the timetable to which the Government are working. I noted that the Minister was careful not to talk about the timetable in the other place. I understand that the Government are not keen to accept amendments in this place, but I hope that if the Minister considers that they contain good ideas, he will redraft them and re-present them as Government amendments tabled in another place.
8.15 pm
Amendment No. 115 would add to clause 11 as another category eligible to give evidence at a hearing
any community or environmental group which is representative of any local authority area in which works authorised by the proposed order are to be carried out".

The amendment is designed to ensure that such groups are included in any inquiry, but that those groups have links with the area in question. A traditional complaint about public inquiries is that too many interest groups try to muscle in. Often those groups may represent general environment and community interests, but have no specific area interest.
Under the Bill as it stands, the only people to be consulted are those directly affected by the compulsory acquisition of land under application and the local authority. I want to make it abundantly clear, by adding a third category, that area community groups should also be included.
I have sought to define what I mean by environmental and community groups in amendment No. 117, which lists them as any
conservation, archaeological, art or environmental or similar group.
Such groups should exist within the relevant local authority area that is affected by a prescribed order.
Sometimes community groups feel that their local authority does not adequately represent their views—some feel that more strongly than others. The London Underground Bill is now in another place between its Committee and Report stages. When the Bill was in Committee in this House, the tenants association of the Canada estate of Rotherhithe petitioned the Committee and sought to persuade it that there was a risk to the well-being and structure of the estate if the line ran directly under it. The association managed to secure the agreement of the Committee that a survey should be carried out.
The tenants association then put its case to the Committee in the other place—I was witness at both Committees. It did not succeed in persuading that Committee, and it felt that one of the reasons for that failure was that the local authority, Southwark, withdrew its original petition of support. As a consequence of that decision, the tenants association felt let down and felt that it could not rely on the authority.
It would be a bad state of affairs if the only way in which community groups could be represented was via a local authority that, for one reason or another, might not want to represent their interests.
The other simple purpose of the amendments is to ensure that those groups who represent certain interests are those that relate to the specific area affected. The Minister will be aware of the Thameslink proposal which will cross London north to south. That proposal will have severe implications in terms of demolition around the Borough market in Southwark by London Bridge station. Listed buildings, including the hop exchange in Southwark street, are also under threat.
The residents association in the Southwark cathedral area has been conscientious in looking after the interests of the area, as has the North Southwark community development group. Their concern about that Bill rightly prompted the suggestion that this Bill could be amended in this way. They speak for many groups around the country in relation to many Bills or public inquiries. I hope that their case will be heard.
Amendment No. 114 deals with financial assistance. As the Minister and his Department know, local groups often cannot hire professionals to pay for promotional expertise to present their case. Extremely high costs are often involved in public inquiries. People lose wages or salaries


through taking time off work and community groups must pay for documents that provide evidence. The amendment seeks to build in an entitlement to financial assistance.
I recently asked the Minister's Department whether the families of those who died and those who survived the Marchioness tragedy could have legal assistance in giving evidence to the inquiry on river safety that the Government have announced. So far, the answer has been no. The families feel aggrieved about that.
The fact that people do not have financial assistance in planning inquiries is a common cause of complaint. It is a great unfairness because on one side there are public authorities, Government Departments, British Rail and London Underground; on another there are private companies to which huge amounts of money are available, and sometimes rich individuals; a third group is composed of individuals, often on low incomes, or community groups with no significant resources, representing areas where the residents have low incomes. It is about time we had a fair system, and this would be an appropriate time to achieve one.
On amendment No. 118, one of the problems of the public inquiry system is that no one other than the Secretary of State has a say about who the inspector should be. I do not wish to complain about any particular inspector. In my nine years as an MP, I have been to many public inquiries and I did so in my previous job. However, there should be some arrangement to ensure that, where possible, there is consultation on the inspector and that a list of possible inspectors is available, in the same way as we have lists of approved contractors for local authorities. In that way, inquiries could be made to ensure that the inspector meets the approval of the community as a whole.
All inspectors could then be approved and selected. Just as in industrial tribunals, where trade unions and employers each traditionally nominate a member and there is an independent member, so there should be some say in ensuring that the planning inspectorate is fair and representative.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In tribunals, people cannot pick those who will hear their case. They may be part of an organisation that helps to nominate people, but they cannot have their unfair dismissal case heard if people are allocated.

Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly valid point, but there is a difference. Represented groups at tribunals participate in the process, whereas there is no participation process in relation to Government-appointed inspectors, and no one else has a say.
If we are in favour of open planning processes, giving the only right to appoint an inspector to the Government of the day cannot be the fairest way to proceed. The amendment seeks to suggest a fairer way. I should be grateful for a positive response from the Minister to that amendment, as to the others. I am ever hopeful, and I hope that, even if the Minister cannot give me all that I seek now, he will say that it can be achieved before the Bill is enacted.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He will be holding his breath for a long time if he is waiting for a positive response to the points that he has raised today. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's admission that he had come to the Chamber an hour

earlier and, on seeing that his amendments were nowhere near being reached, went to watch television rather than following the progress of the Bill. This is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has made an appearance at the Bill's Committee or Report stages. For those of us who have been following the Bill from the outset, it comes as a surprise that the hon. Gentleman expects a positive response.
On amendment No. 114, the case for the public funding of objectors attending public inquiries has been presented many times in recent years. However, the Government remain of the view that those participating in public inquiries can reasonably be expected to meet their own costs. Although local objectors have every right to express their individual or collective views in defence of their interests, it would not be right to provide public funds for that purpose. Any funding scheme would involve a process of selection that could give rise to an accusation of bias and call into question the Secretary of State's impartiality in deciding the schemes. That could arise either from the Secretary of State's choosing to distribute funds among objectors or because he was seen to be favouring objectors over prospective developers.
Furthermore, to make an exception for the purpose of the Bill from the long-established policy against paying objectors' costs would be an undesirable precedent with potentially far-reaching implications. It would inevitably lead to similar claims being made by objectors at public inquiries into other work schemes, and the scale of the potential costs to the taxpayer is self-evident.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the Minister in a good position as regards clause 10? Happily, the Committee amended clause 10 to allow him to make a statutory instrument subject to anulment. Subsection (5) says:
Rules under this section may make different provision for different cases".
That means that rules can be a useful guide and could be set as a statutory instrument. Therefore, the Secretary of State would not be seen to be being dragged into individual allocations. Assistance would be provided according to rules and he could then single out, under the rules, poverty-stricken tenants groups, for example, and exclude the fat cats from the corporations who wish to object. That would create a basis of fairness.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure whether that is a commitment that Labour Members may want to make. I have expressed the Government's position—we do not see funds being made available for those cases. The hon. Gentleman may be right. As the Bill stands, the hon. Gentleman could increase public expenditure in that area and those cases if he so wished.

Mr. Snape: If the Minister is conceding defeat at this early stage in the election proceedings, that is a significant matter. Perhaps he should be back in his constituency knocking on a few doors in case the defeat washes him away.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am fairly confident that those schemes for objectors will not be funded for a considerable time, irrespective of the outcome of the general election, whenever it may happen. We serve no useful purpose by debating the outcome of an election. No one knows what will happen, but I am fairly confident that we shall remain on this side of the Chamber and the Opposition will remain on theirs.
I should like to explain to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey the advantages of the Bill as opposed to the old system of private Bills. Groups will not have to prove locus standi, and the costs of appearing at a public inquiry are far lower than those of appearing in Parliament. The Bill will give many more opportunities to groups that wish to present a case to a public inquiry than the present private Bill procedure does. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
The other amendments seek to establish a statutory role for community groups. How can a community group represent a local authority area? That is a job for a local authority and Members of Parliament. I was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's somewhat dismissive attitude towards what the Southwark authority had done, bearing in mind that the Liberal Democrats usually stand so firm behind the rights of local councillors, and state that they are the best people to make decisions, come what may. He does not seem to want to follow that policy through.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not want to enter a party political debate. However, local authorities may or may not do a good job—they are not normally representative due to the electoral system, but we cannot do anything about that. Members of all parties, including Liberal Democrats, make the perfectly valid argument that community groups and voluntary sector groups should be able to speak separately from the local authorities, as they may have different interests.

Mr. McLoughlin: Amendment No. 115 states:
any community or environmental group which is representative of any local authority area in which works authorised by the proposed order are to be carried out".
I have to go by what the amendment states, not by what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey may have meant it to mean. Earlier, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) say that he understood why the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wished to divorce his remarks from those of Tower Hamlets council—I can understand that.
Amendment No. 118 seeks a role for community groups for vetting the appointment of inspectors. That is absolute madness and clearly wrong. It is of the utmost importance to uphold the impartiality of inspectors. Inquiries have to be fair, and be seen to be fair, by all those involved, including the promoters. That position could not be sustained if appointments were subject to the approval of specific groups on one side of the argument or the other.
Inspectors are chosen for their experience in dealing with the subject matter and their availability. I know of no instance where the selection of inspectors has been controversial. The hon. Gentleman will next be saying that the prosecution should have a vetting right over a judge in a court case. I do not think that his suggestion stands up to scrutiny, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall take the last point first. The Minister chose the wrong analogy. In a court, the defendant has the right to challenge members of the jury, who are the people who make the decision.

Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Irvine Patnick): It is not the jury.

Mr. Hughes: No, that is the fallacy. The Whip is making a fallacious point. It is not the judge who makes the decision, but the jury, who can be challenged. The defendant has to put up with whichever magistrate he or she is given. However, I am trying to find the best system for planning inquiries.
On the Minister's rejection of my point about community groups, he either does not understand or does not want to understand that a local authority interest is often different from the interests of those who are representative of an area that is smaller than that of the local authority. In authorities with thousands of residents —for example, Tower Hamlets or Southwark—all the residents will not necessarily have the same view. Those living around Southwark cathedral, or Rotherhithe, or Surrey docks, or Bow or Poplar will not necessarily have the same views.
The Minister has put his case clearly. If the Government hold to that view, the community and voluntary sectors will study their policies with interest. I think that they will become much more sympathetic to the Opposition's argument on the future of the planning system and will react adversely to the Conservative view.
The Minister said that the Government are not willing to fund people who otherwise might find it difficult to raise the money. It may or may not be cheaper to take time off work to attend and prepare for a public inquiry than to take time off to prepare for a Committee in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. I do not necessarily think that it would be. The same expenses are generally incurred. Lay people often have to battle against lawyers, and the process is unfair.
It is typical of all parts of the Tory Government to want to preserve the status quo that is to the advantage of those who are well-off, with resources, and to the disadvantage of those who are less well-off and who do not have resources. I leave it to those who read the debate and are interested in the subject to decide. As always, the Tory party is never willing to look at ways of making the system fairer, when given such a golden opportunity to do so.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I wish to say something about the hon. Gentleman's speech before he goes back to watching television, or whatever he was doing before the debate.
My experience of reading inspectors' reports is that inspectors are often affected by what ordinary people say on their own behalf, which is a good sign of confidence in the system. Inspectors prove far more challenging opponents of those who are professionally represented, and often gain modifications in the proposals of public authorities. One person, without much experience of appearing before public inquiries, can come and say what their interest is and what they would consider a better proposal. Sometimes, people want to build bridges worth half a million pounds so that a farmer's divided land can be united, or want to move part of the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, or make some other adaptation because of the location of someone's house. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to make partisan points and betray the fact that he thinks that there will soon be an election.
The Bill is designed to make life easier for ordinary people. If people read the report of the debate, I hope that they will have the confidence to make objections or put their argument at any form of hearing, and find that they are well represented and receive a good hearing.

Mr. Cryer: It would be a good idea to study amendment No. 114 to see whether it is possible to provide for minimal costs for people appearing before the Minister or an inquiry. I realise that there could be a problem, as other similar inquiries could then be said to justify such expenditure. However, it is worth keeping that point in mind when considering the procedure.
I do not agree that various groups should vet the inspector. That would prompt accusations of partiality if the inspector were to be approved by one side. The other side might well argue that, as the inspector had been approved by side A, he or she must be opposed to side B.
There was a great argument over the proposed Aire valley trunk road, when, as a matter of course, the inspector was appointed by the Department of Transport. As a matter of routine, inspectors come from the Department, but people simply did not trust the inspector. That was not because he had exhibited prejudice, but because he came from the Department promoting the proposed trunk road.
I believe that, as a result of that outcry, which occurred in 1978, inspectors are now appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department so that they have an impartial status. I think that the Minister may well confirm that. If that is not true of the Department of Transport, it should be. People are anxious to ensure that the inspector is not identified with the Department—a valid point.
In 1978 the Department of the Environment of the Labour Government separated the inspectors from the Department as a result of pressure from a local inquiry to which there was bitter opposition. The inquiry was felt to be so prejudiced that it was broken up. When the inspector tried to keep members of the public out of the room, doors were knocked down and the public simply burst in.
That background is relevant to the Bill, as nobody has been appointed under the new legislation. The Minister should ensure, in the limited time left available to him, that inspectors are appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department so that they are seen to be independent, not as appointees who are subordinate to the Minister's Department.

Mr. McLoughlin: In a trunk road inquiry, the inspectorate is appointed by a panel approved by the Lord Chancellor. For planning inquiries covered by the Bill, inspectors would be chosen from a planning body. In that respect, it is separate from the Department.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Snape: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 6, line 25, after 'shall', insert 'without unreasonable delay'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 67, in clause 13, page 7, line 38, after 'shall', insert 'without unreasonable delay'.
No. 68, in clause 13, page 7, line 49, at end insert—
'(2A) If, in the case of an application for the purposes of which an inquiry or hearing is held, the Secretary of State has not given notice of his determination under section 13(1) above before the end of the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which the inquiry or hearing is closed, he shall, if requested to do so by any person to whom notice of the determination must be given under section 14(1) below, specify the date on or before which he expects to give notice of his determination.'.

Mr. Snape: The amendments address the important question of the time scales that are likely to he involved in the determination of an order submitted under the provisions of part I of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 require the Secretary of State to act without unreasonable delay in exercising his powers in relation to requiring a public local inquiry to be held and in reaching a final decision on an order. Amendment No. 68 provides an applicant for an order with the right to demand an indication from the Secretary of State of when he expects to make a decision if the Secretary of State has not done so within nine months of the completion of the inquiry.
The matter of time scales for the determination of such orders was discussed in Committee, and in response to amendments the Under-Secretary said:
I have concluded that this matter is not suitable for statutory attention. However, I am prepared to consider the publication of guidelines relating to time scales for determining orders … But the Secretary of State could not be bound by them".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 January 1992; c. 205.]
There is considerable support for the publication of guidelines from groups with an interest in this part of the Bill, and they include the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Passenger Transport Executive group. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether he has reached a conclusion on the subject of guidelines.
However, there are serious concerns that guidelines alone will not be enough. The amendments are designed to give added weight to the need to avoid unnecessary delays in the decision-making process without creating problems for the Secretary of State which the Under-Secretary of State argued would arise from the amendments that we considered in Committee.
There are a number of important factors behind the concern of the promoting authorities. Private sector contributions towards the cost of, for example, light rail schemes are increasingly important, particularly in view of Government policies. An applicant for an order would normally seek to have private funding guaranteed before starting the costly exercise of applying for an order. It is essential that private investors know the extent of their commitment, not only in terms of cost, but in terms of how long the commitment would last. Without the certainty of knowing when a decision would he made, it would be difficult to persuade an investor to make a financial commitment in the first place.
The second important reason relates to the changes in relation to blighted property introduced by the Bill. Under the current private Bill procedures and planning procedures, property is blighted only when the Bill is enacted or planning permission is granted. It is recognised that this can cause unfairness, and the Bill provides that land is blighted once an application for an order has been made. This change will impose a considerable financial burden on promoting authorities, such as passenger transport executives, which may have to buy blighted properties long before a decision on an application is made. Speedy decision-making is essential if the financial implications of this change are to be kept to a minimum.
The concern about the timetable for decision making on orders under this Bill is in part a result of authorities' experience with highway orders. A case in Barnsley illustrates the problem.

Mr. Patnick: That is well off beam.

Mr. Snape: It may be, but it is not far from Sheffield.
Barnsley authority submitted to the Department orders in relation to a road scheme in the borough. What is known as a side roads order was submitted to the Department on 15 July 1991, followed by a compulsory purchase order on 30 September 1991. The last dates for objections to the orders were 9 September and 7 October 1991 respectively. There are a small number of outstanding objections to the orders, and the authority is currently negotiating with those concerned with a view to enabling the objections to be removed.
On 25 November 1991—four months after the first order was submitted—Barnsley borough council received a letter from the Department of Transport raising a number of points of concern about the content and drafting of the orders. The authority replied to these points on 10 December. As of the end of last month, the authority has still received no indication from the Department as to when an inquiry can be held. That was the unsatisfactory position almost six months after the first order had been submitted. This case clearly illustrates the need for these amendments, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will revert to his earlier, more conciliatory, self when he replies.

Mr. Moate: In Committee, I moved an amendment requiring quite precise time limits. It was unsuccessful, but I was grateful to the Under-Secretary, who was fairly helpful, responsive and understanding. I am not in the habit of accusing the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) of being moderate or reasonable, but in this instance his amendments are reasonable and moderate. Essentially, the amendments propose that there should not be any unreasonable delay. That is hardly a great imposition on Departments. I suspect that the Minister agrees that it is reasonable for Departments to be subjected to some sort of discipline. I think he said that he could not accept a precise timetable, but that he would accept the logic of guidelines or target dates.
8.45 pm
One understands the difficulty of placing precise guidelines upon the way that Departments deal with planning applications. Some of them can be immensely complex and difficult and one can see all sorts of legal snares if one tries to apply rigid rules. However, the public, and especially applicants and promoters of schemes, are entitled to speedy replies and to some certainty or some understanding of how long it will take so that they can judge the viability of a project and decide whether it should be backed.
I fully understand why the Minister is logically and sensibly constrained by the whole planning ethos in the Department of the Environment as well as in the Department of Transport. Fundamentally, we are on the right lines, and I hope that we shall emerge from this debate and others with more sensible disciplines and constraints upon local authorities and upon the way in which Ministers and civil servants deal with such matters. I hope that the Minister will be helpful.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for the way in which he moved the amendments and to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for the constructive part that he played in Committee. I have no doubt that the amendments are well intentioned. [Interruption.] I hope

that no one will prejudge my speech. I cannot comment in detail on the Barnsley case to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East referred, but I shall write to him next week and I shall look into the matter of the delay. It is difficult to comment on a case about which one has not been forewarned.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister write without unreasonable delay?

Mr. McLoughlin: I will reply in a reasonable time, and that means before next Thursday.
Amendment No. 66 would require the Secretary of State to cause an inquiry to be held without unreasonable delay. Aside from the difficulty of applying appropriate sanctions where the Secretary of State did cause unreasonable delay, the amendment overlooks the fact that the inquiry rules to be made under powers conferred in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 will contain a pre-inquiry timetable within which the Secretary of State would be expected to work. In practice, the timing of the inquiry is likely to be a matter for the applicant to decide, taking into account the outcome of any negotiations that he wishes to hold with objectors. I do not think it wise to try to force the Secretary of State to arrange an inquiry earlier than the promoter wishes. He may well want to enter negotiations to try to overcome some of the objectors' concerns.
Amendment No. 67 also suffers from the problem of what sanction could helpfully be applied to the Secretary of State if there were unnecessary delay in making or refusing an order following, if necessary, an inquiry or a hearing. As I said in Committee, I am prepared to consider publishing guidelines relating to timetables for determining orders, I suggest that they would be of more practical value than the rather imprecise wording proposed in the amendment. I am prepared to go a little further, and say that we shall almost certainly publish such guidelines; but flexibility will be needed.
Amendment No. 68 has several drawbacks. It appears to be based on the assumption that, by the end of nine months from the conclusion of an inquiry, the Secretary of State would have at least received the inspector's report. That may not be the case, because the inquiry may have been long and complex, and the inspector is likely to require double the length of the inquiry to produce his report. To require the Secretary of State to specify the date on which he expects to give notice of his decision on the order in circumstances when he cannot be sure when the inspector's report will be received, or what it will contain, would be meaningless.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister really suggesting that a large number of inquiries will take more than nine months to be completed? If that is so, and if it is likely to take 18 months for the Secretary of State to receive the inspector's report, a long period of blight is probable.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not saying that; I am saying that that might happen in some cases, and that specifying a figure in the Bill would lead to serious dangers and difficulties. I sincerely hope that the inquiries will not take as long as that. I realise that the aim is to do away with the private Bill procedure, but I must say that, if a nine-month moratorium were imposed on private Bills, the hon.
Gentleman would probably succeed in stopping almost every private Bill from reaching the House for quite some time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We do have at least a 12-month block. The amendment merely requires the Secretary of State to give reasons if the process lasts longer than nine months. Normally, if a parliamentary Session lasts for 12 months, a carry-over motion is necessary; and, in a sense, that is the purpose of such a motion—to explain why such a long time has been taken.

Mr. McLoughlin: I accept that, but in such circumstances the Secretary of State would probably specifiy in the order a date several months ahead, to avoid being criticised for failing to meet the date. That would be of no help to anyone. Finally, if the Secretary of State specified a date and that date was missed, what sanction would apply?
A general comment on enforcement may help the House. If the Secretary of State behaves unreasonably in any way, he may be subject to judicial review. He will always have that in mind. The amendments require the Secretary of State to behave reasonably, and that would have to be enforced—again—by judicial review.
I hope that the House will agree that the amendments do not advance the cause espoused not only by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, but consistently in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Snape: I must confess to some disappointment with that reply. We do not appear to have progressed very far since Committee. We cannot lay down a fixed time, because no sanctions are imposed on the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should be dragged out of his office and shot if he fails to make a decision at the proper time; perhaps he should be given a good cuff round the ear from time to time, but nothing more serious. However, we still do not know any more about the guidelines that the Miniser promised us in Committee. He has given us no further information about them tonight.
I have some bad news for the Minister. According to the latest "Newsnight" opinion poll, Labour is leading by 42 per cent. to 38 per cent. Time is slipping away. Unless the guidelines are published very shortly—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. McLoughin: rose—

Mr. Snape: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
Unless the guidelines are published very shortly, the Minister will not be in a position to do much about them.

Mr. Bennett: On the basis of the good news that he has announced, will my hon. Friend tell us what guidelines he will work to?

Mr. Snape: I knew that I should have given way to the Minister in the first place. Let me correct my mistake immediately.

Mr. McLoughlin: May I caution the hon. Gentleman about relying on BBC "Newsnight" polls? At the time of

the by-election in which I became a Member of Parliament, they got it wrong, and they have got it wrong many times since then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. After that little interlude, let us return to the amendment.

Mr. Snape: I shall bear your strictures in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as they have been rejected, the amendments are less interesting than the result of the opinion poll.
We regret the Minister's hesitancy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for describing my amendments as moderate and reasonable: I note that he and I have tabled similar amendments relating to a later clause, and, as he will move his first, I may have an opportunity to reciprocate with moderation and helpfulness. We may well get some moderation from the Minister; whether he will be helpful remains to be seen, but, bearing in mind the fact that he has done his best on earlier occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13

MAKING OR REFUSAL OF ORDERS UNDER SECTION I OR 3

Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
'(1A) Where an application has been made to the Secretary of State under section 6 above and he considers that any of the objects of the order applied for could be achieved by other means, he may on that ground determine not to make the order (but this subsection is without prejudice to subsection (2) below).'.—[Mr. McLaughlin.]

Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister tell us what "other means" he has in mind?

Mr. McLoughlin: That point was raised in Committee. Concern was expressed about a possible flood of applications dealing with matters for which procedures already exist. In particular, some Members feared that unscrupulous applicants might seek to use the new orders to sidestep the established procedures for extinguishing rights of way, where such a proposal was not related to a works matter that belonged to the new procedure. Our proposals were broadly welcomed for that reason.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Rights of Way Review Committee and the Ramblers Association are delighted with the amendment. If I had realised that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was going to speak, I might have expressed my welcome for the measure, but I thought that we were trying to make progress.

Mr. McLoughlin: That is why I moved the amendment formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Snape: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—
'(5) Where the Secretary of State determining the application has for the time being general responsibility for transport matters he shall, in appropriate circumstances, consult the Secretary of State for the time being having general responsibility for planning matters before doing so.


(6) The circumstances referred to in subsection (5) above relate in particular to the environmental and land use implications of the proposals.'.
Where an order was being determined by the Secretary of State for Transport, the amendment would require him to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment if the proposal concerned had major environmental or land use implications. The amendment is designed to explore a relatively unclear area in relation to the implementation of part I of the Bill.
Many schemes promoted under the Bill's provisions will have major environmental and land use implications. In some cases—for example, light rail schemes—the proposals could well be part of a transport strategy designed to reduce the environmental impact of people's ever-increasing demand to travel. Such schemes undoubtedly have significant local and environmental impact, particularly in terms of noise and vibration, and also have major implications for land-use patterns.
The draft applications and objections procedure rules circulated by the Department of Transport in Committee rightly emphasised the importance of environmental impact statements in ensuring that sensible decisions are made. There is, however, some concern about the extent to which the Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible for making decisions on major environmental issues. The purpose of the amendment is to secure clarification of the role of the Secretary of State for the Environment in the decision-making process envisaged in the Bill.
9 pm
As ever, the wording of the Bill itself, with its standard reference to an anonymous Secretary of State, is of no great help. The draft regulations refer to the role of the Secretary of State for Transport but, in parentheses, add the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Energy. The consultation paper on which the provisions of part I of the Bill are based states:
Decisions on orders which included deemed town planning permission would be made by the Secretary of State for Transport after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment (for projects in England) and the Secretary of State for Wales (for projects in Wales).
The consultation document goes on to say that, where other formal ministerial consents were required—for example, listed building consent—a single public inquiry would examine all the issues, and the decision on the order would be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister responsible for the other consent. Thus, if, for example, an application were made for listed building consent as part of an order, the Secretary of State for the Environment would be jointly responsible for deciding whether the order should be confirmed.
The Under-Secretary made a similar point in Committee when he said:
Where it is the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for deciding on an application, he will naturally want to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment about the planning implications of a scheme. That Department holds the relevant expertise in that area and it is unthinkable that it would not be consulted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 Janaury 1992; c. 208.]
In order to clarify what the Minister said on that occasion, as well as this whole area, it would be extremely helpful if the Under-Secretary were to say in what circumstances the

Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible for making the decision about an application, and when other Ministers will have primary responsibility.
It would be helpful if he were to indicate also in what circumstances the Government envisage decisions being taken jointly by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Are the circumstances confined to those in which listed building consent is involved, as I have already set out?
Finally, in what cases will the Secretary of State for Transport consult the Secretary of State for the Environment, what form will the consultation take, and will the existence and the outcome of consultations be made public?

Mr. McLoughlin: I have no quarrel with the basic intention behind this amendment, but it is another attempt to introduce on to the face of the Bill rigid procedures that are undesirable and inappropriate. The references throughout the Bill to "Secretary of State" without further identification is deliberate. It is a term that is unlikely to be affected by changes in ministerial responsibilities. It takes into account—as this amendment does not—the fact that the relevant Secretary of State will not always be the Minister in charge of a Department that has general transport responsibilities.
For example, tidal energy barrages will be determined by the Secretary of State for Energy or, in Wales, by the Secretary of State for Wales, and inland waterway schemes by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The term also ignores the planning responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales for developments in Wales. It is within the political memories of most of us—including the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, (Mr. Snape) I am sure —that the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment were once the same and that for some years the former did not encompass maritime and aviation matters.
We accept that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales should be consulted about every draft order submitted under clause I or 3 involving planning issues that would be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport or by the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister really saying that the Secretaries of State will be interchangeable? If so, is it right to assume that a Secretary of State will not be the Minister to make the decision in respect of a scheme in his own constituency?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that, in government, that sort of situation is well protected. There are very clear guidelines. No Minister —whether a Secretary of State or a junior Minister—would involve himself in matters that directly affected his constituency.
I can give the House an assurance that consultations such as I have referred to would take place. If hon. Members need further evidence of our good intentions, they should be aware, first, that, under the application rules, the local planning authorities will be statutory consultees, and copies of every application, with supporting documents, will have to be deposited with every local authority in whose area the proposed development is situated. Secondly, applicants will have to produce an environmental statement for every scheme


except the very smallest, and this will be available for public inspection. If policy issues arise on these documents, it is to the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales that we shall turn for guidance.
With those assurances, I ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Snape: I confess to a sense of disappointment. The Under-Secretary congratulates me on the moderation of my amendments or, at least, gives an implicit nod to the moderation with which I move them, yet he says that they are not necessary. If an anonymous Secretary of State is mentioned in the Bill, it is not clear, not only in law but to interested parties who may well be, or wish to be, involved in a local planning inquiry or in direct representations, what Secretary of State is concerned. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept my amendments, he might think about speaking to the parliamentary draftsmen about using the words "the appropriate Secretary of State"— that is, the appropriate Secretary of State depending on the matters before that currently anonymous person.
Once again, in the interests of amity in these proceedings, I beg to ask leave, though somewhat reluctantly on this occasion, to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15

CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 9, line 7, leave out 'or permission' and insert `, permission or licence'.

No. 28, in page 9, line 11, leave out from 'relates' to end of line 13 and insert—

'(a) the procedure for obtaining, or otherwise relating to, the consent, permission, licence, order or confirmation, and
(b) the procedure relating to the application made under section 6 above,

are wholly or partly assimilated (and in particular that proceedings relating to the one may be held concurrently with proceedings relating to the other)'.—[Mr. McLaughlin.]

Clause 16

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Mr. Moate: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 9, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—
'(2A) Subject to subsections (2B) and (2C), planning permission shall he deemed to be granted for development for which provision is made by an order under section 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.
(2B) Development is not permitted by subsection (2A) if it consists of or includes—

(a) the erection, construction, alteration or extension of any building, bridge, aquaduct, pier or dam, or
(b) the formation, laying out or alteration of a means of access to any highway used by vehicular traffic,

unless the prior approval of the detailed plans and specifications of the appropriate authority is first obtained.
(2C) The prior approval referred to in subsection (2B) is not to be refused by the appropriate authority nor are conditions to be imposed unless they are satisfied that—

(a) the development (other than the provision of or works carried out to a dam) ought to be and could reasonably to be carried out elsewhere on the land, or

(b) the design or external appearance of any building, bridge, aquaduct, pier or dam would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury.

(2D) In subsections (2B) and (2C) "appropriate authority" means—

(a) in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the local planning authority,
(b) in a National Park, outside a metropolitan county, the county planning authority, and
(c) in any other case, the district planning authority.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69, in page 9, line 33, at end insert—
'(1A) Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 shall apply to an order made under section 1 above as if it were an order made under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964.'.

Mr. Moate: The amendment provides that, once an order under clause I or clause 3 is made, the development for which the order provides would have the benefit of deemed planning permission in the same way as is the case for development authorised by a private Bill at the present time or by a harbour revision order. The provision made by the amendment is in exactly the same terms as part If of the 1988 order. Therefore, it provides exactly the same planning safeguards as those that currently apply in the case of development authorised by private Bills or harbour revision orders.
This question was considered in some respects in Committee and has been the subject of subsequent representations and discussions with the Minister. I put on record my appreciation of the way in which the Minister received representations and has endeavoured to meet these anxieties. However, I am still extremely worried, as I think others are, about the way that the Bill might work in practice with regard to a number of orders. Efforts have been made to satisfy those concerned that there is no cause for anxiety, but people are still very anxious because they believe that the Bill will not work in the way that it is intended to work.
My hon. Friend knows that I regard the present private Bill procedure as totally unsatisfactory in many respects, particularly for railway matters. The new procedure will be very much better. However, at the moment, the private Bill procedure means that, once all the parliamentary hurdles have been overcome and a Bill becomes an Act, there is certainty about planning permission. Our concern is that under the new proposals the same certainty will not apply once an order has been made.
I do not believe for one moment that the Minister, or anybody else, wants to cause further procedural delays, but my worry is that, as the Bill stands, it may be possible for an order to be made by the Secretary of State and for there then to be another planning procedure, another inquiry, which could cause considerable delay. The very fear of that second bite at the cherry could worry promoters and cause great concern and indecision about whether to proceed with a certain project.
As it stands, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State only to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to have been granted. However, the terms on which planning permission is granted are left entirely to the Secretary of State, in contrast to the present planning rules.
I understand that the intention to leave it in this optional form is not designed to make life difficult for


British Rail or any other promoter: it is intended to be helpful. None the less, the fact remains that the Secretary of State has the option, if he so wishes, not to grant full planning permission. If we assume that normal planning permission would be granted at the same time as the order is made, that could happen only if—this is another anxiety —the promoters had submitted all the detailed design work so that the whole matter could be considered at the same time.
That is a risky process. If the very principle is in doubt, the promoter is risking enormous investment in planning all the gradients, all the work on the bridges, the design work and the like for a scheme about which there is some element of doubt.
We are then told that that is not necessarily what will happen. The promoters need only seek outline planning permission for the details to be resolved thereafter, perhaps with the local planning authority. That presents a problem because, on a controversial scheme, the local planning authority could make unreasonable demands and, in effect, call for another planning process to deal with all the details. We would then have had one order-making procedure, perhaps involving a public inquiry, determined by the Secretary of State, followed by another planning and consideration process.
Nobody wants the procedure to be drawn out. We want it to be streamlined and efficient. No one is suggesting that the public and the planning authorities should not have full input into the proceedings. However, it is paramount that it is wrapped up in one procedure. My concern is that, as the Bill is drafted, it might now always work that way.
I am satisfied that it is the intention of my hon. Friend the Minister and the planning authorities that it should be done in one procedure, but we cannot be certain that the statute would always be followed in that way. It is reasonable to place in the legislation the certainty that is currently in the private Bill procedure. All one is asking is that planning permission shall be deemed granted once an order has been approved. All that means is that, before making an order, the Secretary of State must go through all planning considerations and take into account all the representations and the detailed and outlined work. British Rail is the body most concerned about this, but it could be any body. Any promoters need to know that they can go ahead with certainty.
I hope that my hon. Friend can meet those anxieties and accept my amendment or that tabled by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), which has the same result.
Mr. Snape: At the risk of extending even further this mutual admiration society, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on the content of his amendment and the way in which it was moved. I hope that I do not depart too much from the attitude of concensus if I say that amendment No. 69 is even better than his amendment, but I think that his is pretty good. I hope that the Minister can accept the principle behind both amendments and the chapter and verse of one.
Clause 16(1) as drafted would empower the Secretary of State on making an order under clause 1 relating to railway works and so on to direct that planning permission be granted subject to any conditions that he may specify. That is different from the position that obtains now under

the private Bill procedure, which we are supposed to be reforming or improving, or under a harbour revision order.
At present, if Parliament agrees a scheme or a harbour order is approved, there is deemed planning permission for the scheme, subject to reservation of detailed matters under part II of schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1988. Reserved matters to be dealt with by the local planning authority would consist of the detailed designs of erections or extensions of buildings, bridges or the formation or alteration of a means of access by any highway used by vehicular traffic. The local planning authority could not refuse such detailed matters unless it was satisfied that the development could be carried out elsewhere on the land authorised for the works or that the design or external appearance of the buildings would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and could be reasonably modified.
At present, the promoter of a scheme will not have to consider the planning side as a separate and distinct application from the overall consideration of the merits of the scheme. Planning issues such as environmental assessment and the scheme's relationship to local authorities' local plans and structure plans are all to be considered. Essentially, an overview is taken of the total project.
9.15 pm
In Committee, the Minister stated in column 229 of the report of the proceedings that planning merit should be considered on a case-by-case basis, which would enable the necessary planning conditions attached to the order to be tailored to suit a particular case and he said that matters such as the design details of a building or bridge could be approved by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, he stated that, in some cases, planning permission would not be required or might already have been granted.
Under the draft rules for the application for orders, there will have to be a prior notification of any scheme to the local authority and a certificate from the local authority about the status of the scheme in relation to the structure or local plan. All the various planning issues will be considered at a public inquiry, where one is held, as opposed to being considered under the private Bill procedure as at present.
However, there seems to be no justification from the Government of why there has to be an added complication in having a specific planning application before the Secretary of State. All the usual planning material will come before the inspector at the inquiry and the promoter will have provided sufficient detail to prepare the necessary plans and sections and for a clear description of the works. However, he will not necessarily have the design of buildings completed to the finest degree. Although he may have a pretty clear idea of the overall scheme, he may wish to hold back on further commitments of staff resources on a very detailed design until he or she has received the overall approval—that is, precise formation of station shelters or station buildings, if we are to use British Rail as an example.
If planning permission has already been granted by a local planning authority or it is not required, there is no particular planning issue for the Secretary of State to consider, and in such a case, the deemed planning permission provision need not apply. Where required, however, the present arrangements should apply.
In essence, while the same substantive issues are to be considered under the present and proposed procedure, the new procedure creates an unnecessary further application and complication. It gives complete control to the Secretary of State even on the detailed matters which are much more likely to be of great interest to, and, indeed, considered with greater awareness by, the local planning authority. In short, the Minister has not made a clear case for changing the present arrangements or planning procedures which have worked satisfactorily and are extremely clear and simple.
In tabling amendment No. 29, the hon. Member for Faversham sought the reintroduction of the present planning arrangement, but our amendment is framed in such a way that it equates with what the Government even now still propose for harbour orders—a deemed permission procedure. It is illogical, to say the least, that the deemed permission can apply only to harbour works, not railway works.
Again, I return to the central point of the Bill. It is supposed to simplify the procedure. If amendment No. 29 —or amendment No. 69—is accepted, it will do so. If not, it will further and unnecessarily complicate the procedure.

Mr. Cryer: I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). Amendment No. 29 is similar to amendment No. 69. It provides for safeguards for major works so that local authorities have some planning consent, but allows the planning procedure to be integrated into the making of the orders. That is very important because otherwise it could lead to British Rail, for example, being involved in significant costs in the preparation of designs and plans when development might be delayed or might come to nought.
Amendment No. 29 deals with major works such as
the erection, construction, alteration or extension of any building, bridge, aqueduct, pier or dam
and various means of access to highways which should be the prerogative of the local authority. This is not an erosion of local authority planning rights—it ensures merely that the planning procedure is not dealt with as an entirely separate matter so that expenditure is not made needlessly by a public body which is already very short of money for any new development. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept either amendment, as the issue has cross-party support.

Mr. McLoughlin: I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and to the lion. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). As my hon. Friend said, I also met him a short time ago to discuss the issue behind the amendments. I shall try to explain why I do not support the idea of a General Development Order approach. I do not agree that a convincing case has been made for amending the Bill. We considered adopting the General Development Order approach, but concluded that section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 offered the most flexibility both to applicants and to the Secretary of State in determining orders. I shall explain why.
First, promoters will be able, if they wish, to make separate applications for planning approval to the local planning authority. Such a facility was proposed in the Government's consultation paper, "Private Bills and New Procedures", on the basis that applicants should be

allowed the option of applying separately for planning permission. For example, the applicant may already have obtained planning consent, or may have been advised by the local planning authority that planning permission was not required when applying for a works order. That frequently occurs on preserved railway schemes which are subject to light railway orders.
The GDO approach, involving automatic planning permission to be deemed to be granted with the order, would encourage objectors to raise planning issues at the local inquiry, which under the section 90 approach the inspector would be able to disallow. The amendment could therefore seriously prejudice the interests of certain applicants, and result in two planning determinations on the same development.
Secondly, the procedure enables designs and specifications to be prepared in sufficient detail for planning consent to be deemed to be granted without the need for an application to obtain separate planning permission from the local planning authority. Perhaps, on very large schemes, the promoter would not want to risk heavy detailed design costs until an order had been made, but on smaller projects, where the promoter could be reasonably confident that the order would be authorised without significant amendment, it might be worth while for detailed designs to be submitted with the draft order, as that would save the time that would be spent in going separately to the local planning authority. The decision, however, would rest entirely with the applicant. If he wanted to adopt an arrangement on design work similar to that provided for in the General Development Order, he would be able to do so.
Finally, the Secretary of State has greater freedom on the conditions that he wishes to attach to a particular order. That might help the applicant, without prejudicing the position of the objector. For example, the Secretary of State might restrict the categories of construction works which need to be subject to separate planning consent to a shorter list than that contained in the GDO, or he might impose tougher conditions on the grounds on which the local planning authority might object to the detailed designs. Of course, much would depend on the amount of information provided about the scheme with the draft order. Consequently, the question whether outline or full planning permission was deemed to be granted would have to be considered case by case. But as the applicant would be in the driving seat concerning the level of detailed designs that he provided with an order, I cannot see how he could be prejudiced by the approach we have adopted.

Mr. Moate: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, understand what he is saying now, but he said earlier that on a larger scheme an applicant—a promoter—might wish simply to lodge outline information, because he would not wish to go to the expense of providing extensive design work until he was more sure that the scheme would be approved. It is important to establish whether my hon. Friend accepts that, in those circumstances, there would have to be a subsequent planning procedure, which would incur further delay and costs.

Mr. McLoughlin: I intend to deal with that point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be happy—or, if not happy, at least content—with my answer.
It has also been suggested that, as the deemed planning permission would not be automatic, and the power in


clause 16 is discretionary, the applicant could not be certain that the permission would be granted with the order. The power is discretionary rather than mandatory because, as I have said, some applications will not require planning permission. Although that means that the Secretary of State could, in theory, withhold or delay deemed planning consent, one has to ask why he would want to do so.
The planning merits are likely to be such an important and integral aspect of the approval process where development is involved that it is scarcely conceivable that the Secretary of State would approve an order without at the same time granting planning permission. The promoter would be bound to question the decision of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State would have to provide reasons. Such a decision would probably be unlawful, because it would be unreasonable, and no reasonable Secretary of State would have made it. We come back again to the position of a possible judicial review.
Amendment No. 69 would tie the orders to harbour orders. As we shall see when we come to amendment No. 123, harbour provision orders sometimes disapply the GDO because it is too inflexible. It enables them to deal with planning permissions more sensitively. I suspect that, if we were beginning again, we might use the provisions in clause 16 for harbours too.
For those who remain sceptical, I can give an unqualified assurance that, on all applications in which planning permission is sought as part of an order, the Secretary of State would always make a determination on the works order and deemed planning permission at the same time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham suggested that the promoters of orders, such as British Rail, would not want to commit expensive design resources before the order was determined, and so would only be able to obtain outline planning permission. That would in turn leave them at the mercy of local planning authorities. British Rail, for example, would have to go to such an authority to obtain detailed planning permission. That may be true, but the same applies under the General Development Order. The local authority could refuse planning permission to the works, such as bridges, excluded from the permitted development, or could impose conditions on the means of access to the site.
It is a moot point whether certain other conditions, such as the imposition of working hours and noise insulation measures, which are not imposed under the GDO, should apply to railway developments. Those matters would almost certainly be raised at a local inquiry, and the Secretary of State would want to ensure that they were dealt with properly before approving the order. In any event, not all promoters would want to leave the detailed design for approval to the local authority. Some will see the advantage of going for detailed planning approval as part of the order and thus avoiding the need to apply separately to the local authority.
Our approach gives flexibility which the GDO does not. I hope that the reassurances that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Opposition Members show that our approach is the most flexible and does not disadvantage either promoters or objectors. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendment.

Mr. Moate: By leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
Some of us find ourselves in some difficulty. The Minister's arguments are not unfamiliar and I am sure that they are backed by considerable expertise and by considerable authority. However, there are authoritative and expert views—I know that from many years of experience, especially of British Rail—which are sceptical about whether matters will work as my hon. Friend has said. We do not pretend to be planning lawyers and it is especially difficult to make precise judgments about what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that he understands that there is genuine concern that matters will not necessarily work in the way that he has described.
I am not sure what I am asking my hon. Friend to do. Without disrespect to the eminent consultant who has, no doubt, advised him so far, will my hon. Friend take a second opinion? That is not an unreasonable thing to do, because there is genuine concern. In some ways, my hon. Friend's words on the record are helpful. He said that the Secretary of State would "always" make a determination. As a statement on the record, that is helpful, but it does not bind my hon. Friend's successors and it is not in the statute. Sometimes the promoters could be at the mercy of a local authority after they have gone through all the previous procedures, so there is some alarm.
I do not feel that we can press the matter further at present. It is right that we should have registered concern and I urge my hon. Friend to get others to have another look at the issue to see whether there is some way in which to import certainty into the procedures so that we can be reasonably certain that at all times there is one procedure, not two, and that promoters are able to put forward a proposal with the certainty that there will not be undue expense.
That would be in the interests, especially for railways, of speedy construction and sensible streamlined planning procedures, coupled with fairer opportunities for public representation. I hope that my hon. Friend will look again at the proposal before the Bill goes to the other place. If he will do that, I am happy not to press the amendment.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

COAST PROTECTION ACT 1949

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 10, line 21, leave out `at the end' and insert 'after paragraph (g)'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 23

EXERCISE OF SECRETARY OF STATE'S FUNCTIONS BY APPOINTED PERSON

Amendments made: No. 32 in page 11, line 36, after `(3)', insert
`Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

No. 33, in page 11, line 47, at end insert—
`(3A) An order made on an application dealt with by a person appointed under this section shall not authorise the compulsory acquisition of land, or the compulsory creation or extinguishment of rights over land (including rights of navigation over water).'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. McLoughlin: 1 beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 12, line 11, at end insert—
'(5A) If the Secretary of State exercises the power conferred on him by subsection (5)(a) above, he shall give reasons to the appointed person for revoking his appointment.'.
It might help if I make a few comments on amendment No. 34. It requires the Secretary of State to give a reason to the appointed person if his or her appointment is to be revoked. The amendment stops short of publication, because it is possible that the appointment is being revoked for reasons that that person would not want to be divulged. For example, it might be on health grounds or for some other personal reasons which should not be made public. I think, however, that this amendment meets the spirit of the one tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and I hope that the House will support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41

APPROVAL OF WORKS, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

Amendment proposed, No. 87, in page 21, line 28, at end insert
'and other periods of use before sufficient information is available for a decision to be made on an application for approval'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Peter Bottomley: This amendment is concerned with testing. I note that we have passed over part II, chapter I, which has a few clauses about a different sort of testing, to which it might be possible to return on Third Reading.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

STOPPING UP AND DIVERSION OF RAIL CROSSINGS

Amendment proposed, No. 38, in page 34, line 34, after `to', insert `(a)'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 39, Government amendment No. 7, in page 34, line 35, leave out from 'practicable' to end and insert
'either—

(a) to improve the safety of the public at the crossing; or
(b) to divert the path or way; or
(c) to replace the crossing with a bridge or tunnel.'.

No. 8, in page 34, line 40, at end insert—
'and showing the alternative highways which run between the ends of that part of the path or way being stopped up'.
No. 9, in page 34, line 40, at end insert—
'(5A) Where an order made under this section or under section 119A below has been confirmed, the highway authority may erect, and maintain for a period not exceeding ten years, such signs as it considers expedient for informing the public of the closure of the crossing of the railway line; and, before making an order under his section or section 119A below at the request of a railway operator, a council may require the operator to enter into an agreement with them or with the highway authority to defray, or to make such contribution as may be specified in the agreement towards, the expenses incurred by the highway authority in providing and maintaining such signs.'.
Government amendments Nos. 40 to 42.

No. 11, in page 35, line 26, leave out from 'practicable' to end and insert
'either—

(a) to improve the safety of the public at the crossing; or
(b) to replace the crossing with a bridge or tunnel.'.

No. 12, in page 35, line 34, at end insert,
'and which is substantially as safe and convenient to the public'.
Government amendments Nos. 44 to 45.

Mr. Fearn: I refer to amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. In Committee, on 21 January the Minister said that he accepted the principle of what was then the last part of new clause 1. That would enable the Secretary of State to direct the railways board to provide a tunnel or bridge if he or she believed that there was no other way of making the crossing safe. The Minister also stated that grants would be given to ensure that crossings were as safe as possible. I welcome both statements. However, the Minister also said:
It is important that costs be kept low".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 January 1992; c. 294.]
We should recognise that, above all else, our amendment deals with safety. I do not believe that any expense should be spared to make crossings as safe as possible, especially when protecting human life. However, the years of continuous neglect under Governments of differing complexions will make it difficult to meet all safety costs in one go. Nevertheless, that should not be an excuse not to attempt any improvement.
An additional benefit to be gained from my amendment is that it specifically lists alternatives to closure of a path. I further believe that pedestrians' rights should be considered equally in regard to road and rail. The amendment would put the rights of pedestrians affected by road and rail alterations on an equal footing. In Committee, the Minister stated that the Government would table their own amendment on the issue, but I hope that he is willing to accept my amendment in the belief that it is a reasonable step forward which may save lives.
Amendment No. 8 aims to improve security and scrutiny of any rail extinguishment order. The Bill requires that the plan should show the path which is being stopped up. The amendment would ensure that users could clearly see what alternative routes would have to be used if the order was confirmed. The measure would enable potential footpath users to pass judgment on the relative safety and convenience of alternatives to the existing plan.
Support for any measure that places information in the hands of local people should be maintained within the House. That is the purpose behind the amendment, and it is my aim that it should be achieved at no cost. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 deal with safety. As all five amendments that I have mentioned deal with safety, perhaps the Minister will spend some time telling us what we can conclude from the fact that safety is not mentioned that often and is not mentioned in his amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and me. They have been sent in by the Ramblers Association. I am aware that the Minister has given some assurances to the rights of way review committee that he will try to meet many of its points by means of regulations. I hope that he will reinforce those assurances when he replies and will deal with at least some of the specific problems.
First, where a closure takes place and an alternative route is proposed, it is important that local people know what the alternative is. They must be able to examine it and see whether it uses roads. We must ensure that, when we divert people away from a dangerous railway level crossing, we do not simply divert them to a section of dangerous road where there is equal hazard. It is important that local people know not only that the crossing will be closed but what the alternative will be. If a closure is approved, it is important that proper signs are provided to show that the route has been closed and the alternative route.
The Minister will realise that many people who go out walking use ordnance survey maps. Although it would be nice if maps were kept up to date, that is not always the practice. Today I walked down to the London map centre near Victoria and looked through three or four of the maps on sale. I looked especially at the outdoor leisure map for the Conwy valley. It is based on a map that was produced in a provisional series for the 1920s. Major revisions have been made since, but some of the footpaths go back to that era. The forestry activities in the area have made some of the paths impossible to follow. If someone is working with a map which may be five, six or more years out of date in an area where a level crossing has been closed and an alternative route provided, it is important that the route is clearly described.
I hope that the Minister will spell out the duties on a local authority which approves a closure to ensure that there are adequate signs to show that the crossing has been closed. Obviously, a crossing will be closed only if it is dangerous, so it is important that people do not use it and that the alternative is clearly signed and marked. I hope that the Minister can give that assurance and confirm that, at a further meeting with the Rights of Way Review Committee, he will give assurances that the regulations will meet the points that the committee has made.

Mr. McLoughlin: If I may begin with the last point first, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet the Rights of Way Review Committee and try to meet any outstanding points.
The Government amendments seek to deal with concerns raised in Committee and in our consultations with the rights of way review committee that the provisions in schedule 2 on rail crossing extinguishment and diversion orders did not include a power enabling councils to recover the costs of erecting any signs or barriers in connection with the orders.
Part of amendment No. 39 and amendment No. 42 require the council or the Secretary of State to take into account arrangements for the placing and maintaining of appropriate signs and barriers when confirming a rail crossing extinguishment or diversion order. The second part of amendment No. 39 and amendment No. 44 enable the council to require the railway operator to enter into an agreement to recover in part or in whole the cost of erecting and maintaining barriers and signs before making a rail crossing extinguishment or diversion order.
The enabling powers for erecting signs on public paths and ways are contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Draft regulations prescribing the size, colour and nature of the signs will be prepared. In the case of an extinguishment order, the intention is that a sign capable

of being retained for a period of 10 years will be placed at the intersection of the extinguished path or way and other paths or ways warning users that the path or way shown on the ordnance survey map has been closed.
The other amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend are consequential tidying up provisions.
I commend the amendments to the House. They have the support of the Rights of Way Review Committee, and I am sure that they will be of real practical value when paths or ways crossing railways have to be stopped up or diverted on safety grounds.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) should not get too carried away because safety measures are not mentioned in the Bill. The ethos underlying it is to try to help and to have proper regard for safety matters. He makes too much of saying that safety is not on the face of the Bill.
I hope that Opposition Members will not press amendment No. 9, on the basis that it is less comprehensive than ours. It does not, for example, include the provision of barriers.
Turning to the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, amendments Nos. 7 and 11 seek to qualify the circumstances which the council and the Secretary of State should take into account in confirming, respectively, unopposed and opposed orders. We accept that the practicability of diverting a crossing rather than simply stopping it up should be considered, as should the possibility of replacing the crossing with a bridge or underpass.
On the other hand, the term
improving the safety of the public at the crossing
suggests that measures might be taken which, although an improvement, still did not make the cross safe for use. We think that that would be an unacceptable watering down of the safety provisions in the Bill. Our view, more broadly, is that the amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from taking into account other circumstances which may be relevant to the decision. That cannot be right.
I have some sympathy for the intention behind amendment No. 8, but we think that that could be dealt with in the regulations which would be made, prescribing the information which the railway operator would have to provide with his request for a rail crossing order. We shall come to that when we debate amendment No. 72.
Amendment No. 12 is good in parts. We agree that the new point of termination of a diverted path or way should be safe for use by the public. That would be considered by the council and the Secretary of State in deciding whether to confirm a rail crossing diversion order. Neither authority would be prepared to confirm a diversion order where the diverted path or way was demonstrably unsafe.
However, it might be reasonable for a rail crossing diversion order to be confirmed where the point of termination of the path or way was not substantially as convenient to the public. Where safety is involved, a less convenient right of way might be more acceptable to the path users than the loss of the right of way altogether—which might be the only other practicable option. The Secretary of State or the council must have regard to the relative convenience of the diverted path or way, and would turn away an order where the diversion was so inconvenient as not to offer a reasonable alternative, but those matters are best left to guidelines rather than


prescription in the primary legislation. We have covered that, but I give an undertaking to meet the Rights of Way Review Committee if there are other concerns. We have already met the committee, and the amendments that we have tabled are a result of those meetings.
I hope that the hon. Member will feel able not to press his amendment.

Mr. Fearn: The Minister has given reassurances, and he mentioned the word "safety" twice, so I shall withdraw the amendments in my name.

Mr. Speaker: We do not need the pleasure of a withdrawal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 39 in page 34, line 35, at end insert
', and
(b) what arrangements have been made for ensuring that, if the order is confirmed, any appropriate barriers and signs are erected and maintained.
(4A) Before determining to make a rail crossing extinguishment order on the representations of the operator of the railway crossed by the path or way, the council may require him to enter into an agreement with them to defray, or to make such contribution as may be specified in the agreement towards, any expenses which the council may incur in connection with the erection or maintenance of barriers and signs.'.

No. 40, in page 34, line 44, after 'section', insert
'—
operator", in relation to a railway, means any person carrying on an undertaking which includes maintaining the permanent way;'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment: No. 10, in page 34, line 44, leave out from 'railway' to end of line 46 and insert 'does not include tramway'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 13, in page 36, lin 32, leave out from 'railway' to end of line 34 and insert 'does not include tramway'.

Mr. Bennett: Why does the Minister have to apply the proposals for crossings to tramways? My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) described graphically the problems for the drivers of high-speed trains and the horror that they could experience if they were involved in an accident on a level crossing. We can all understand that there is a balance between the requirements of safety and the problems that they present for the railway on main lines, with trains travelling at considerable speeds. How does he envisage the same problems applying to a tramway, as in most instances at some time or other they will run through a town centre? Why is it necessary to consider the closure of footpath crossings on tramways?

Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that the provisions in schedule 2 apply mainly, if not wholly, to railways. There are, for the moment, only two tramways in England and Wales operating passenger services—Blackpool and Great Orme—but in both cases I am told, there are substantial lengths which do not run on the street. The Manchester metro and other new light rail systems will also include sections of segregated tramway. It is possible therefore that a path or way crossing a tramway operated off street could become unsafe.
For example, a new caravan park might result in increased use by people unfamiliar with the tramway and it might be necessary to stop up or divert the crossing on safety grounds. Although I agree, therefore, that the provisions are basically there for railway crossings, we cannot rule out entirely the need to use them for tramways, and because of the important public safety considerations, this provision must be comprehensive. I hope that I have given the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman requires.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister certainly has not. I do not remember which hon. Member gave a long reminiscence in Committee about travelling on the Great Orme tramway.

Mr. Snape: It was me.

Mr. Bennett: I am sorry that I failed to credit my hon. Friend.
If the Minister had experience of that tramway, he would realise that it was not driven at such great speeds that it was not safe to walk across the track. I can understand that there are circumstances in which it is not safe to be in front of a Blackpool tram, but that is only on the carriageway. It seems odd to say that people can walk to and fro on the carriageway, but if the trams run on a small section that is not on the carriageway, people cannot walk across that. That is totally illogical and inconsistent.
The Minister has asked about new circumstances. I hope that the new Greater Manchester tramway system will be operating by the end of the month. Sections of that line towards Altrincham and Bury use what were railway lines, which have been downgraded for trams. I cannot envisage a situation in which trams will travel so fast along that section of track that the footpath will have to be closed, yet on other parts of the route, the same trams will run along carriageways in which people will be free to walk backwards and forwards across a track without any difficulty.
If the Minister wants to reassure ramblers and others that he is not setting out to close footpaths on a wholesale basis, which is totally unnecessary, it would be far better for him to make one more concession and accept the amendment. I know that he is not keen to have amendments moved in the House of Lords or to delay the progress of the Bill, but I am tempted to push this to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 35, line 25, after 'to', insert—
'(a)'.
No. 42, in page 35, line 26, at end insert
',and
(b) what arrangements have been made for ensuring that, if the order is confirmed, any appropriate barriers and signs are erected and maintained.'.
No. 43, in page 35, line 34, at end insert—
'() A rail crossing diversion order may make provision requiring the operator of the railway to maintain all or part of the footpath or bridleway created by the order.'.
No. 44, in page 35, line 48, at end insert—
'(aa) any expenses which the council may incur in connection with the erection of maintenance of barriers and signs;'.
No. 45, in page 35, line 52, leave out 'or'.
No. 71, in page 37, line 2, leave out 'written'.
No. 72, in page 37, line 4, after 'railway', insert—


'(aa) the request is in such form and gives such particulars as are prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State'.
No. 73, in page 37, line 40, at end insert—
'7A. In section 325 (provisions as to regulations, schemes and orders) in subsection (2)(a), after the word "section", there shall be inserted the words "120(3A) or".'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 59

HARBOURS

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 29, line 21, at end insert—
'(3) In section 35 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (which excepts certain operations from the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State's consent under section 34) in subsection (1) there shall be added after paragraph (h)—

"(i) any operations authorised by an order under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964.".'. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Schedule 3

AMENDMENT OF HARBOURS ACT 1964

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 38, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Schedule 3 hangs on clause 59 and relates to an entirely different matter. We have shifted from tramways and railways to the much more ancient travel facility—the harbour. There are about 600 of them around our coast and many are relatively small. Most harbours were important to their regions years ago, but the change in shipping techniques has often left them to inshore fishing or perhaps leisure use.
The powers with which I am concerned are contained in schedule 3. The Bill transforms section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964, which enabled the then Minister of Transport to change harbour constitutions. Many of those harbours were entreched in Acts of Parliament of long ago. Some small ports obtained their own Acts of Parliament, many of them unique and highly localised, with a good deal of local loyalty and concern.
There was some contoversy over the passing of section 14 because it allowed the then Minister to change the constitution of those harbour boards by statutory instrument, even when those harbours had been established by an Act of Parliament. The provision was not confined to small harbours. The constitution of the Port of London Authority engaged the House in many debates between 1906 and 1910. Two or three long Second Reading debates took place on the establishment of the Port of London Authority. Its constitution was changed more or less in secret overnight by a statutory instrument. Therefore, in the past, harbour revision orders have not been used just for small ports.
Schedule 3 changes those powers. It is legislation by reference to section 14 and it enables the Secretary of State to issue a statutory instrument that closes part of the harbour, reduces the facilities available in a harbour, or disposes of property not required for the purposes of a harbour. As I said in Committee, closure of part of a harbour could mean the closure of as much as 80 or 90 per cent. It could effectively close 100 per cent. of a harbour.
Indeed, it could do much more, because schedule 3, paragraph 1(4)(c) states:
for the words 'repealing and amending' there shall be substituted the words 'excluding or modifying any provision of any Act or of any instrument made under any Act (including this Act) and for repealing'.".
In other words, it gives the Minister the power to modify not just harbour Acts but any Act for any purpose and, in this respect, it is related to a harbour.
I take exception to that provision, because it transgresses the principle that an Act of Parliament should be amended only by another Act of Parliament. If it is contentious, it should be debated as art Act and not smuggled through in a statutory instrument, still less one that has no powers of annulment and is not even subject to an affirmative resolution. Here, we have that in extenso.
Amendment No. 122 seeks to delete the power to dispose of property that is not required for the purpose of the harbour. As the Minister has powers to close virtually all the harbour—there is no limitation on his power in that respect—he also has the power to dispose of property around the harbour. Such places are often of considerable scenic beauty and local amenity, are much prized and of high value. I do not object to the fact that the provision includes the power to change the facilities in a harbour for vessels that are not just sea-going ships, which is the original definition. Subsection (2) says:
there shall be added the words 'or in the interests of the recreational use of sea-going ships'
Although those small harbours can be closed, they can also be changed to function as marinas. As you, Mr. Speaker, know, as you were in the House at the time, marinas can sometimes be controversial. I remember the legislation on the Brighton marina, which surged to and fro through the Chamber like a wave for two or three Sessions, and provoked highly controversial and emotional speeches.
I do not say that the powers will be given to 600 Brighton marinas, but they will be given to about that many small ports and harbours throughout the country. People believe that the rights and usages of such harbours —usually of high civic value—are entrenched in Acts. If enacted, the Bill will sweep those away and give the Secretary of State enormous powers that I do not believe he should have. Therefore, I hope that he will explain why he wants that power, which I do not believe the House should give him.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) dealt partly with the next two groups of amendments, to which I shall come shortly. I do not believe that his argument is as weighty as he might imagine.
As I said in Committee, an order cannot provide for the complete closure of an harbour or enable the authority to get rid of its statutory function. The Minister must be convinced that he ought to give powers to dispose of the land in the interests of the harbour. The Bill changes nothing in principle, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, which would merely leave the 1964 Act in its present confusing state, which would not benefit anyone.
Mr. Spearing: I accept that my speech strayed on to amendment No. 123, but I do not accept the Minister's explanation. He said that he cannot complete the closure of a harbour, but I never said that he could. I said that the Bill virtually gave him the powers to do so if he so chose.
We all know that harbours are viable only if certain facilities are available and fully used. I cannot withdraw the amendment, but no doubt the Minister will try to negative it on the voice.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 38, leave out lines 41 to 43.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 124, in page 39, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Mr. Spearing: I have already partly covered this point, as it related to amendment No. 122. However, the amendment also covers an equally stringent provision contained in paragraph 2(3) of schedule 3 where, in relation to the original legislation—the ports and harbours orders—
after the words 'any other enactment' there shall be inserted the words 'and provisions for excluding or modifying any provision of any Act or of any instrument made under any Act (including this Act)".
For the reasons I gave a few moments ago, I cannot believe that it is right. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us an explanation for the inclusion of paragraphs I (4)(c) and 2(3) in schedule 3. I do not believe that he should have those powers.

Mr. Cryer: Why does the word "excluding" replace "repealing" and the word "modifying" replace "amending"? I suppose that the power will no longer enable the Minister to repeal a section of an Act, but he will be able to exclude a section of an Act from an order that he is making. It is not very clear. I think that paragraph 1(4)(c) of schedule 3 means that his powers will be slightly reduced. Will the Minister confirm that, and state why the section is being retained?

Mr. McLoughlin: Section 14(3) of the Harbours Act 1964 provides for inclusion of provisions repealing or amending provisions in local Acts. Paragraph 1(4)(b) widens the power to enable the order to disapply or modify the application of general statutes but not to repeal or amend them. Harbour revision orders, unlike private Bills, cannot be used to modify or disapply provisions in general Acts or subordinate legislation of general application except in special cases such as section 43(3) of the Docks and Harbours Act 1966.
Paragraph 2 makes similar provision for harbour empowerment orders under section 16 of the 1964 Act. Section 16 did not, however, provide for the repeal of the amending of local Acts that section 14 did. Because it is by nature a harbour empowerments order, it sets up a harbour authority for an area where there was previously no harbour authority and no local legislation relating to harbours.
The commonest example of this application of general statutory provisions in private Acts relating to harbours is the disapplication of General Development Orders. Similarly, for the purposes of harbour revision orders it may be preferable to deal with planning authorities about the development as a whole instead of relying on GDOs for part of the planning permission or orders.
The effects of paragraphs 1 and 2 will be to give greater flexibility, especially where part of the proposed development is subject to normal planning permission. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

To be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee) to be considered tomorrow.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Government Whip has not moved the 10 o'clock business motion, did he make any change to the information on the Annunciator? As you have seen, Mr. Speaker, there is a petition on the Order Paper and it seems unfair—[Interruption.] I hope that I shall be able to continue without the interruption of raucous shouts from pinstripe hooligans from the Whips Office. It might be worth trying to encourage Government Whips to ensure that business changes are made clear on the annunciator. That is what the annunciators are for, and it is daft to spend thousands of pounds installing information television sets throughout the Palace of Westminster and then not inform people when business is changed at a moment's notice.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order. I do not know when the decision was made. It was Conservative Members who had petitions down, and I suppose that they might well have been informed. It is not a matter for me.

Dyslexics (Diagnosis and Treatment)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am pleased to have the Adjournment debate and the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). The debate is on the subject of the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia. I shall start by repeating the words of an eight-year-old child to his mother. The child said, "Do you know what I think? I think God has put my brain in upside down." That shows the problem facing many children suffering from dyslexia.
The signs and the symptoms of dyslexia are that those suffering from it have difficulty with literacy skills and sometimes some aspects of numeracy. They have a short-term memory weakness, auditory or visual. That means that they cannot take down dictation from the blackboard or orally because, by the time five words have been put on the blackboard, they have forgotten the first words. They have language and sequencing difficulties and left-right confusion and mixed dominance. They have motor problems, are clumsy and suffer from the reversal of letters and words. There is a short attention span and dyslexics lack concentration. They also suffer from disorganisation, erratic performance and hyperactivity.
In infant school, such children may be articulate and appear bright, but they may appear shy and have problems with speech and language. They find it hard to settle down to work; they may be clumsy and untidy because of the difficulty that they have in dressing. They may not have decided whether they are right or left-handed. Attempts to write, draw and cut may be very immature. They will experience difficulty in forming letters correctly: they may mirror-write, and not be aware that what they are producing is wrong. They may reverse stem letters, and invert "u" and "n", "m" and "w", more than other children in the class.
Such children have difficulty in associating sounds and symbols. If they are mastered, the children may have difficulty in using sound and symbol knowledge. They may have auditory discrimination problems: for example, "f", "v" and "th" sound the same to them. They may have visual memory and discrimination problems. They do not know how to learn, and cannot learn, by the "look and say" method of teaching children to read. They have trouble following instructions; if they understand them, they often forget them very quickly.
The children have a poor sense of time. They will be late; they will be disorganised. They have difficulty with sequencing—with days of the week and the alphabet, or with counting. If a child cannot read, his teacher may say, "Do not worry. He is a slow developer; he will read when he is ready." And so it goes on in that teacher's class, as the seven-year-old becomes an 11-year-old. Such children may well be frustrated; they may well switch off and daydream.
Typically, the signs are the same in the junior school child, but they become more pronounced. Children will have language problems. They may have difficulty in thinking of the name for something. Conversations will be peppered with "watchermacallit", "thingummyjig" and similar expressions, which give the children time to think what they really want to say. They will have trouble with multiplication tables, days of the week, months of the year

and the alphabet. Again, they will be clumsy and disorganised. They will probably develop behavioural problems. Such a child will either be the class clown, or very withdrawn, shy and dispirited. Eventually, he will probably play truant and absent himself from school
Such behaviour is not put right even when the children attend secondary school. Reading and spelling ages will be well below the ability range; reading ability will be adequate, while spelling problems persist. Typically, such children will not read for pleasure. They may have very slow reading speeds. They may get the gist, but get it very inaccurately. Essay writing and written exam performance are well below the standard of oral contributions. Pupils have difficulty in taking notes, and in memorising materials for exams. They will be disorganised, and have difficulty in planning their time and keeping track of materials as a child of 12, 13 or 14 might be expected to do.
The children may have limited vocabularies, and little interest in words. They may interpret language very literally. They will have poor concentration. They will have daydreams, or become fidgety. They will find French, or any foreign language, extremely difficult. Handwriting and presentation may still be poor, and inaccurate copying may present problems.
The children may continue to experience left-right confusion and sequencing difficulty. They will tend to fall apart under pressure, particularly as regards spelling. The quality of their work will be very variable, depending on the conditions in which the work is produced and on how the child is feeling: he has good and bad days.
The teacher will say that the work that the child produces on a good day just shows how well he can do, and that, if only he would make more effort, he would get there. School reports, typically, will contain remarks such as "Must try harder", "He is lazy", "He is careless", "Oral work good, written work poor", "Must work harder at spelling", "Must read more" and "Exam results disappointing".
All those tendencies are typical of dyslexic children throughout their years of schooling, and they can all be corrected. Such children can develop into very worthwhile people, whether they are very intelligent or very unintelligent. They can be helped in their schools.
What are the remedies? Fundamentally, a dyslexic needs very intensive teaching. Dyslexics are infuriating people to teach. The teacher will have to give them extra attention and will have to recognise their difficulties. They will have to be given support, confidence and motivation. Things that they can remember today they will have forgotten entirely within a week. This means intensive teaching.
They cannot learn to spell or read without the use of phonetics or the phonic word method of teaching. Of course, that is not to exclude other methods of teaching to which they will respond, but, fundamentally, it is not possible to achieve reading and spelling recovery unless phonetics and phonics are used. Their short-term memory and their resulting difficulties with dictation or writing down from the blackboard must be understood by the teacher. Unless a child has taken down his prep from the blackboard or, alternatively, has written down what has been dictated, the rest of the lesson will be lost. The teacher must make certain that the dyslexic child has got the material down and is therefore able to do the work. It is therefore necessary that the teacher spends extra time—not much, but some—with the dyslexic child.
Of course, dyslexic children must not be humiliated. Many of them are very conscious of the fact that their friends, who seem to be just about as bright, just the same, as they, can read aloud but that they cannot. They get confused, and then they are criticised and humiliated, with the ridicule that that attracts. That leads to a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. They then turn off completely, and their confidence evaporates. And this happens at the ages of six and seven. They need help and encouragement and patience—indeed, intensive teaching.
Why should we be concerned about this? These are problems with which any schoolteacher is familiar and has seen day in and day out. It is true that 10 per cent. of the school population have dyslexia, whether mildly or very seriously, and that 4 per cent. probably need statementing. However, the rest can be taught in the classroom. They can be encouraged and helped to realise their capabilities within the classroom.
What happens when provision is not made? For example, it has been proven that, of those below the age of 18 convicted of criminal offences, 80 per cent. are dyslexic. This is typical of the results of not teaching and helping dyslexics at an earlier age. These people use their abilities in an alternative way—many of them criminally—to attract attention, fulfil their ambitions and boost their self-esteem. So it is important socially, as well as from a humanitarian point of view, that we try to enable children to realise their capabilities.
We can correct the situation. By doing so we would save massively in the re-education of these children and in subsequent social and even political costs. The problem could be addressed quite simply and quite economically in a five-point programme, about which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond positively.
First, phonics, or the teaching of reading through the use of phonetics, should be compulsorily included in initial teacher training courses and, indeed, in the one-year postgraduate course. We need to make certain that teachers are capable of diagnosing and teaching dyslexics. Provision must be made in the initial teacher training syllabus and in the syllabus for the post-graduate diploma.
Those teachers who are already in post must be enabled to take a recognised qualification in the teaching of dyslexics, such as that promoted by the Royal Society of Arts, which will attract additional salary as recognition of the additional skill. Thus our existing teaching force will be enabled to diagnose and treat dyslexia.
In addition, the extra provision in the budget of each school, to which I referred earlier, is needed so that the teachers may spend that necessary little bit of extra time coping with the infuriating dyslexic—the pupil who needs a little extra time. That must be provided for in the school budget. Dyslexia requires a ring-fenced part of the education budget of approximately 2·1 million, which must be separate from the special learning difficulties provision in the education budget. It must be separate from and additional to that budget. Dyslexia must not be confused with the generality of special learning difficulties, although 4 per cent. of dyslexics will need special treatment over and above what I am talking about, under separate statementing procedures.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been extremely kind and generous in receiving delegations led by me on two occasions in the last six months from the British Dyslexia Association, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon is associated. At our initial

meeting with my hon. Friend, he said that he had a number of investigations to undertake and that he intended to invite those undertaking investigations into teacher training to look into the matter and to make proposals to him along the lines set out at the meeting. He kindly asked the delegation to return six months later.
We went back to see my hon. Friend six months later, in January of this year. Again he gave us enormous encouragement by lending his support to the programmes that we put to him and by his understanding of the problems involved. I very much hope that tonight the Minister will be able to give further encouragement to those members of the teaching profession who have to deal with this difficult problem by saying that he will try to implement the five-point programme that I have put before the House.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on his excellent speech and on raising this important subject.
Dyslexia is of great interest and concern to my constituents in Basildon and is of particular interest to me. At the age of five, in a class of 50, my mother was summoned to see the class mistress in the excellent school that I attended, St. Anthony's infants school, Forest Gate. She was told that I had very severe learning difficulties. I had a pronounced stutter. I could not make the sounds "st" and "th".
For three years after that, I had elocution lessons—special tuition—and was then denied my rightful heritage of a cockney accent. I am very grateful, however, that my learning difficulties were identified. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to the Basildon dyslexia association, led by one of my constituents, Mrs. Christine Haggerty, and her excellent committee.
For some little while, Essex county council was reluctant, as the Minister knows, to recognise that there was such as thing as dyslexia. That is understandable. In this day and age, when parents might have anxieties about their children's educational progress, it is easy to seize on the subject of dyslexia and say, "But so many children have dyslexia." We all know that children can be somewhat cruel to each other. I know that my hon. Friend is wary of identifying children in so highlighted a way that they might suffer teasing from other children. However, this is a very important subject.
Excellent workshops are held at the weekend in Basildon. I have been to see the wonderful work that is being done there. All sorts of techniques are used. The children are making great progress with reading, spelling and their general development. I hope that we shall have an excellent centre in Basildon. I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. We both look forward to listening to the Minister's response to our concerns.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on raising dyslexia as an issue for debate this evening. This is not the first time that we have debated the subject. My hon. Friend attended the debate that was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for


Worcester (Mr. Walker) some time ago. My hon. Friend has pursued his interest in this subject with great vigour. I recall meeting him and his associates at the Department, when we had more than one positive and helpful discussion of the subject.
Dyslexia is a very wide and important topic. It is capable of supporting continued debate without retreading old ground. This evening, the subject of debate is more particularly the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia, upon which I intend to concentrate.
Everything that my hon. Friend said spoke volumes about the need to catch the problems much earlier than we have. Study after study has shown how important it is to identify dyslexia as soon as possible in a child's development. If we do that, those in the medical, caring and teaching professions can then start to take the appropriate steps leading to early remediation of the difficulty, where that is possible.
It is often not appreciated that there are early signs, even in very young children, which suggest that a child might subsequently develop specific learning difficulties. The signs and the children may be difficult to identify with certainty, even by the trained eye. That is because the signals being given are often mixed or very close in nature to the signs which might, equally, indicate different sorts of difficulties or developmental delays.
The main point is that, if a child is giving some cause for concern, the behaviour and performance should be examined more closely and the child should be monitored very carefully over the succeeding period to try to discover the exact causes. As my hon. Friend knows, dyslexia is not just about getting words jumbled up. It is much more complicated.
Even before a child starts school, a doctor or health visitor might see a child with a very bumpy developmental profile. That should sound an initial warning. The doctor may know if other family members have any history of serious problems with literacy. The child may show signs of clumsiness, or poor co-ordination in gross or fine motor movements, distractibility or poor concentration. There may be a delay in the development of speech and language, or by and large normal development coupled with a difficulty in, say, drawing shapes. Anything requiring sequential ability—for example giving the days of the week in order or repeating patterns or instructions—may give the vital first indication of specific learning difficulties.
Sometimes, specific difficulties unrelated to sensory impairment may become apparent at nursery school. In such cases, the teacher who spots them may be able to seek advice from the educational psychologist or the pre-school specialist teachers. If those difficulties are marked or show signs of developing, careful monitoring of the child will be needed. That means that we must involve the parents at an early stage. They know more about the child than anyone.
By the time the child has got to school, and in the first few years there, the signs of dyslexia or other specific learning difficulties become more easily distinguishable from those exhibited by children with other difficulties or developmental delays. The child with dyslexia is often set apart by the skills shown and by demonstrable intelligence in other areas. The child in his early school days might

present as an imaginative and bright child who, for example, rather surprisingly cannot write his or her name, repeat digits or even copy letters or shapes.
The key indicator might again be that the developmental profile is uneven, and those warning bells sound again if there is a family history of literacy difficulties. Again, if there are worries, early referral to the educational psychologist is one way forward. It is only when an accurate profile has been constructed that an appropriate teaching programme can be arranged.
My hon. Friend suggested that the skills required to enable teachers to make a preliminary diagnosis of dyslexia and then to use the appropriate teaching techniques should be included in all initial teaching training courses. Those who provide such courses are already required to equip prospective teachers to teach the full range of pupils whom they are likely to encounter in an ordinary school, and to introduce them to ways of identifying children with special educational needs that includes cases of dyslexia.
Further training is also available for teachers of pupils with dyslexia. Training of teachers to deal with special educational needs in ordinary schools is one of the priorities supported by the Department through the grants for education support and training scheme. The Department has also sponsored the production of an audio-visual pack aimed to assist teachers in ordinary schools to identify children with special needs, one module of which is specifically concerned with dyslexia.
I am delighted to be able to say that the Department has also recently provided £34,000 for research into how dyslexia can be identified as early as possible, so that those needing the sort of specialised teaching methods that I have outlined can take advantage of them without delay. That work is being undertaken by the Hereford and Worcester branch of the British Dyslexia Association in conjunction with Birmingham university, and I look forward to seeing the results.
I deal now with treatment. There is a range of professionals within the child health service who may be able to offer help within an integrated programme of support for the child with special educational needs. Sometimes, emotional and behavioural difficulties are associated with dyslexia. If so, the educational or clinical psychologist has a role. If the child has marked speech or language difficulties, the speech therapist will usually come into it. The paediatric physiotherapist can help if there are gross motor co-ordination difficulties, and the occupational therapist can help if there are fine motor co-ordination difficulties. If the child is easily distractable or over-active on some days and not on others, there may be some other sensitivity or food allergy—in such cases the dietician comes into his or her own. Sometimes, all those professionals need to get together to produce an integrated programme for the individual child, and I urge that they do so when that is going to be of substantial benefit to the child.
Where pupils are identified as having dyslexia, it is up to the professionals concerned to adopt, where necessary, a particular teaching programme to assist the pupil with the areas of difficulty—usually concentrating on r eading and spelling. Examples of such specialised programmes are the Hickey programme, Alpha to Omega, or the Arrow programme. Most such programmes include teaching with a multi-sensory approach in order to give the pupil


maximum support through a variety of auditory, visual, and tactile stimuli—each reinforcing the others and lessening the pupil's dependence on any one.
Children are unique, and it is therefore not surprising that their needs are nearly all different in some ways. The key is for the professionals and teachers to discover which of the different approaches will be suitable for the pupil in question.
My hon. Friend suggested that the national curriculum should permit the use of phonics in teaching children to read. I agree. The national curriculum does that. Those parts of the orders for English concerned with reading combine a range of the most widely used and successful techniques for helping pupils to acquire and develop their reading skills. Those include the use of picture and context cues, words recognised on sight and phonic cues.
My hon. Friend also argued that instruction in phonics should be made compulsory in ITT courses. Phonics is already a feature of such courses, at least according to the staff involved, but it is usually presented—I think that this is the core of my hon. Friend's concern—as merely one of the various possible strategies of attack. The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education inquiry into the teaching of reading produced some useful evidence on that, and I must ask my hon. Friends to be patient and await the publication of its report, which is imminent. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
As for the support grants and teacher training, the Government recognise that in-service teacher training has a crucial role to play in implementing all aspects of the curriculum. The GEST programme is the principle vehicle. In the current year that programme is supporting LEA expenditure of £170 million in relation to the implementation of the basic curriculum and related assessment arrangements, of which £78 million is for in-service training. In 1992–93, that will rise to £88 million. Of that, about £12·9 million has been set aside by the Government to support local education authorities in the training of teachers and others involved in special educational needs, including those in further education.
My hon. Friend suggested specifically that part of that money should he ring-fenced for courses on specific literacy difficulties and that resources devoted to dyslexia should be kept separate from other SEN resources. We have been conducting a thorough review of the GEST arrangements as they apply to training related to special educational needs. We have considered the number of categories of special educational need training which are eligible for grant under the GEST programme. We have not made the final decisions, but the review is nearing completion and we hope soon to be able to incorporate any changes in the GEST programme for 1993–94. I cannot say much more than that other than that I am pursuing my hon. Friend's specific suggestion.
My hon. Friend also suggested that holders of the Royal Society of Arts diploma in specific learning difficulties should be entitled to receive additional salary allowances, as do at present, for example, holders of qualifications in the deaf, blind and deaf-blind field. I should make it clear that those latter qualifications are mandatory for teachers working in the areas concerned, while the RSA diploma is not, but in any case, the school teachers' review body, in its first report, said that it

intended to seek specific evidence on the pay and conditions of teachers in special schools and classes generally as part of its next review. Therefore, we must await its findings on that.
When I addressed the House on the subject of dyslexia last April, I said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State had asked the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education to undertake an inquiry into the preparation of student primary teachers to teach reading. The council was asked as part of that inquiry to consider dyslexia specifically, and its report will be published shortly. I am taking a keen interest in how it will be received as a contribution to improving reading standards. My hon. Friends will find that report contains much of interest, and much that strengthens their case for further reform.
It will be evident from my remarks that improving reading standards is a priority for this Government. We recently announced also a national trial of the reading recovery programme pioneered in New Zealand by Dame Marie Clay. That involves the provision of daily individual teaching in reading and writing for the lowest achieving six-year-olds in ordinary classrooms. Within an average of 12 to 15 weeks, most of those children will have reached the average level of attainment in reading, and we hope that those gains will be sustained.
By providing that tuition for the lowest-achieving pupils at age six, we believe that the number of children in our schools with reading difficulties can be effectively reduced. Funding is concentrated on teacher training in the early stages.
As you, Mr. Speaker, have graced us with your presence tonight, and have a considerable personal interest in the subject, it is appropriate that I should conclude my remarks with a reference to a major development very close to the constituency that you have served so well and so long, for so many years.
When I spoke on dyslexia last April, I mentioned the important research being conducted at the Harris city technology college in Croydon. It is receiving £250,000 of central support over three academic years, and it is already producing interesting results. The intention is to meet the need for further practical investigation into how dyslexia can be tackled.
Our overall aim, building on that research, is to ensure that all pupils have the fullest access to the national curriculum. That research is in midstream, and it will not be finished until the autumn of 1993. There are, however, encouraging signs that research may have helped already towards identifying new ways of grading and diagnosing dyslexic tendencies in children—but more must be done.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising and pursuing this important matter. I welcomed an opportunity to say a few words about the positive steps that the Government have taken, which I hope have been helpful. My personal view is that the Department, local education authorities, and the wider educational world are moving the issue of dyslexia forward. I want the House left in no doubt as to my personal commitment to seeing progress made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.